' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 14-12-1992.
2. Ata Muhammad, respondent No, 1, brought a suit for cancellation of alienation of the suit land through his Special Attorney Muhammad Jamil. The suit was contested by the petitioners. Certain preliminary objections were raised. 9 issues were framed by the trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the suit land was sold by Ata Muhammad on 23-7-1994, through general attorney, to Muhammad Aslam, and the mutation was effected on 26-7-1974. The petitioners filed a pre-emption suit against the sale. The suit was decreed on 18-11-1981; the possession was delivered to the petitioners and the entries in the Revenue Record had been made.
Reverting to the facts of the present case, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary issues. An appeal was filed before the District Court, which was disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Khanewal, and the case was remanded to the trial Court on the following grounds:- "Keeping in view the arguments and after perusing the record I am of the considered view that there is no provision in C.P.C. To force the learned lower Court to treat all the issues of law to treat preliminary issues one by one and decide them one by one. Learned lower Court must treat all the issues of law preliminary issues at one and the same time but not one by one. As in this case the learned lower Court had treated Issue No, 6, as preliminary issue which was decided in favour of the appellant but the remaining issues must have been taken jointly after giving the opportunity of evidence to the parties. Issue No, 1 is not a purely issue of law. Several other facts are also involved in this issue. This issue could not be treated as preliminary issue as having done by the learned trial Court. This issue could only be decided after giving the parties full opportunity to produce evidence.
' An application under Article 163 Qanun-e-Shahadat and Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. Was also filed in the learned trial Court before announcing the impugned judgment. The learned lower Court must have also decided this application prior to the decision of the case by impugned order."
' 1The petitioners filed an appeal before the High Court against the decision of the Additional District Judge, which was dismissed. It was observed that the plaintiffs were not given opportunity to produce evidence, therefore, the trial Court could not dismiss the suit.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 5 suits were filed on behalf of Ata Muhammad through different attorneys in respect of the same cause of action, but all the suits were dismissed either for non-prosecution or on merits. The decision of the trial Court on preliminary Issue No, 1 was, therefore, legal, proper and could not be interfered by the two Courts below. The learned counsel has also referred to the diary of the High Court dated 6-6-1989 and 26- 6-1989 whereby Muhammad Jamil, the attorney of Ata Muhammad, was directed to produce his principal, as the Court had doubted the very existence of person known as Ata Muhammad. Be that as it may, the case was remanded by the Courts for decision on preliminary issues. It has been rightly pointed out by the Courts that the preliminary issues should not be decided in piecemeal. All issues of law should be decided jointly and the A trial Court may direct the Attorney to produce his principal, but without affording any opportunity to the plaintiffs the suit could not be dismissed. The order of remand passed by the Additional District Judge is legal and proper and the trial Court should dispose of the issues in accordance with the directions made by the learned Additional District Judge in his order dated 24-4-1989.
' With the above observations, this petition is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused.