' The petitioner is a vendee-defendant in a suit for possession of the land in dispute filed in exercise of right of pre-emption by respondent No,
1. The claim of the petitioner is that being a tenant of the land in dispute he had a superior right or pre-emption and had purchased the land in exercise of that right. The petitioner took up an objection by a separate application to the maintainability of the suit in view of his defence. His objection is that since by an amendment of Martial Law Regulation No, 115 by Land, Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, all suits for enforcing the right of pre-emption in respect of land comprised in a tenancy are exclusively triable by the Collector, this suit can also be tried by that authority and not by the civil Court. This objection was repelled by the learned Court below by the impugned order dated the 9th July, 1976.
2. In clause (d) of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph No, 25 of Martial Law Regulation No, 115 a right of pre-emption was conferred in respect of a land comprised in a tenancy on the tenant shall of that land. It reads as follows:- "Subject to the other provisions of this Regulation, a tenant shall have the right of pre-emption in respect of the land comprised in his tenancy."
' In view of paragraph No, 22 which relates to the bar of jurisdiction of the civil Court, an objection was taken in a number of cases pending before the civil Courts that suits in which one of the grounds or the solo ground of superiority in the right of pre-emption is subsisting tenancy of the plaintiff, would not be competent before a civil Court but should be filed before the Land Commission Authorities. The Legislature stepped in to clarify the position in this respect and added sub-paragraphs (5) to (9) to paragraph No, 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation (M. L. R. No, 115). The relevant sub-parapraph on which reliance is being placed is sub-paragraph No, (5) which reads as follows:- "All suits for enforcing the right of pre-emption in respect of land comprised in a tenancy shall be exclusively entertained, heard and decided by the Collector within whose jurisdiction the land in respect of which the right of preemption has been claimed is situated, and all such suits which may be pending in any Court immediately before the commencement of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 1976, shall on such commencement stand transferred to the Collector concerned."
' The learned trial Court held that this paragraph related only to suits for enforcing the right of pre- emption on the basis of tenancy and as such it applied only to a suit where the plaintiff claimed to be having a superior right of pre-emption on the above ground. The stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner however is on the words "in respect of land comprised in a tenancy" when he argued that in view of the vastness of the scope of the language used in the above sub-para. All suits whether based on a right of pre-emption of the plaintiff or right of defence of the defendant on ground of tenancy would be within the jurisdiction of the Collector and consequently would be beyond the jurisdiction of the civil Court.
3. I do not agree with this interpretation. The relevant paragraph is to be interpreted in the light of the provisions which originally conferred the right of pre-emption i,e, clause (d) of sub-para. (3) of paragraph 25 where similar language was used in relation to a plaintiff. It is provided there that a tenant has the first right of pre-emption "in respect of the land comprised in his tenancy". The words in quotation provide the key for interpretation of similar language in sub-paragraph (5). This is further supported by the use of the language "all suits for enforcing the right of pre-emption" in the opening part of sub-paragraph (5). Clearly, therefore it is meant by the Legislature to exclude the jurisdiction of the civil Court in relation to matters where a plaintiff comes to the Court to enforce a right of pre-emption conferred by clause (d) of sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph No, 25 on the ground of his tenancy. It has nothing to do with cases where the tenancy is pleaded only as a defence to a suit for pre-emption and not as measure of enforcement of that right. I, therefore, agree with the learned trial Court that the present suit is within the ambit of the jurisdiction of the civil Court.
4. The petition is dismissed in limine.