The brief facts are that agricultural land measuring 163 Kanals 16 Marlas situate in revenue estate Danni Khurd, Tehsil Phalia, District Mandi Baha-ud-Din was sold by Ghulam Rasool son of Khan Muhammad to Nazir Ahmed respondent. The present petitioner instituted suit for possession through pre-emption against the respondent on 1-10-1975 on the basis of relationship with the vendor and ownership in the estate. The suit was decreed ex parte on 21-2-1977, but this ex pane decree was set aside by the learned trial Court on 21-1-1978. Finally this suit of the petitioner was dismissed on 17-12-1992 by the learned trial Court, observing that, "since the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 was repealed so, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as he did not plead necessary Talbs, bona fide personal need, and other grounds as mentioned in the new Punjab Pre-emption Act."
2. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, on 7-3-1994. Hence this Revision Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly contended that in the present case the ex parte decree was passed on 21-2-1977, i.e. Much before the target date fixed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Said Kamal's case PLD 1986 SC 360, .Therefore, the case of the petitioner had to be decided in accordance with the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Reliance in this connection was also placed on Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf and another 1992 5CMR 2117.
4. This argument is misconceived. No doubt, the ex parte decree was passed in the present case on 21-2-1977, but, as observed above, the same was admittedly set aside by the learned trial Court on 21-1-1978 and the appeal against the order of setting aside ex parte decree was also dismissed on 14-3-1978 by the learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner did not take further steps to challenge the order dated 21-1-1978 setting aside the ex parte decree or the appellate order dated 14-3-1978. Resultantly, the ex parte decree dated 21-2-1977 became non-existent and the status quo ante stood restored and the trial commenced de novo from the stage at which the proceedings were taken ex parte. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of this Court in Safdar Ali Khan Syal v. District Judge etc. PLD 1982 Lahore 63 and the case from Indian jurisdiction in Phani Bhussan v. Phani Bhusan AIR 1957 Cal. 170.
5. It cannot, therefore, be said that the decree was passed in the present case prior to 1-8-1986.
Accordingly, the rule laid down in Bahadur Khan v. Muhammad Yousaf (supra) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the basis of ex parte decree, which had remained in the field even afier 1-8-1986, is not attracted to the facts of the present case. The present case was, therefore, covered by and had to be decided in accordance with the provisions of the new law, i.e. Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991.
6. The Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 confers right of pre-eruption on: (a) Shafi Sharik, (b) Shafi Khalit and (c) Shafi J.-- in accordance with section 6 of this Act, which further provides that "right of pre- emption shall be exercisable A only in case of ' Zaroorat' or to avoid ' Zarar' . " Under section 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 the requirement of Talabs has also to be fulfilled. As held by the learned trial Court, the plaintiff had not pleaded that the conditions laid down in sections 6 and 13 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 were fulfilled by him. Since none of the conditions conferring right of pre-emption on the petitioner, or the right to file suit or that the requisite ' Talabs' were made, were even averred in the plaint, the suit of the petitioner was rightly dismissed. I, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned lower Courts. Resultantly, this Revision Petition is dismissed without any order as to costs.