1. ' WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.---Muhammad Sadiq petitioner herein, assails the judgment dated 2-3- 1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, whereby R.S.A.
2. No, 38/78/BWP, filed by him against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Rahimyar Khan dated 6-2-1978 decreeing the suit of Nazar Muhammad respondent and the judgment and decree dated 12-6-1978 passed by the appellate Court maintaining the same, was dismissed.
3. ' The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that Muhammad Hanif was owner of the suit land, who sold the same vide registered sale-deed dated 15-5-1975 in favour of Muhammad Ramzan, Sultan Ahmed and Mst. Anwari Begum. Muhammad Sadiq, petitioner herein, filed a suit for pre-emption against it on 10-7-1975, claiming to be a tenant of the suit land and, as such, possessed of first right of pre-emption. The defendants/vendees confessed judgment and the learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 2-9-1975. Another suit for pre-emption was filed by Nazar Muhammad, respondent 1 herein, against the same transaction on the ground of being collateral of the vendor in which Muhammad Sadiq petitioner was also impleaded and the decree passed in his favour was challenged as fraudulent and collusive and the entries in Khasra dawari in his name were also attacked as forged and fictitious, and denied his tenancy as well. This suit was registered as Suit No, 169/1 of 1976 and was contested by the vendees as well as by the rival pre-emptor Muhammad Sadiq. Necessary issues in the case were framed, evidence led pro and contra thereon recorded and the learned trial Court, vide its judgment dated 6-2-1978, passed decree for possession through pre-emption in favour of Nazar Muhammad against the vendees as well as Muhammad Sadiq, rival pre-emptor, in lieu of Rs,12,000 and it was specifically ordered that the amount shall be received by Muhammad Sadiq who had already paid the same in compliance to the decree in his favour and which had already been received by the vendees/defendants 1 to 3.
4. On issue No, 2, the Court came to the conclusion that Muhammad Sadiq petitioner had not established his tenancy and that the decree passed in his favour was not binding on Nazar Muhammad respondent/pre-emptor. The petitioner preferred appeal against it before the District Judge but with no success vide judgment dated 12-6-1978 and so was the second appeal through the impugned order. Hence the instant petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' We have heard Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate, for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 in which Muhammad Sadiq is recorded as tenant over an area of 16 Kanals under Muhammad Hanif vendor in Khata No,72, Khatuni No, 531, Khasra No, 177/10 and some of the other Khasra numbers are recorded in possession of Nazar Muhammad and some in the joint possession of Nazar Muhammad and Muhammad Hanif. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to copies of Khasra Girdawaris in which Muhammad Sadiq is recorded in possession as tenant over some Khasra numbers and submitted that Muhammad Sadiq petitioner had established tenancy over some of the Khasra numbers which were the subject-matter of the sale transaction and having proved his first right of pre-emption, the decree passed in his favour could not be disturbed to the extent of the area in his possession. He submitted that all the three forums have misread and non- read the documentary evidence on the record and the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.
7. ' Leave is granted to consider the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Both the parties shall maintain status quo in the meanwhile.