' AJMAL MIAN, J.---The above petitions are directed against a common judgment dated 29-10-1995 of a learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court passed in Civil Revisions Nos.187 of 1994, 188 of 1994 and 189 of 1994, filed by the petitioner against the judgments/decrees dated 9-12-1992 and 28-6-1994 of the learned Civil Judge, Lakki, and of the learned Additional District Judge, Lakki, respectively, dismissing the same by maintaining the above judgments/decrees.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner filed three pre-emption suits in respect of Mutation No,20320 attested on 22-2-1990, Mutation No,20324 attested on 13-3-1990 and Mutation No,20326 attested on 31-3-1990. The aforesaid suits were resisted by the vendees/respondents. The learned Civil Judge, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed as many as 13 issues. After that he started recording evidence in the first suit. It appears that the petitioner in his cross-examination made an admission to the effect that he had sent one Asmatullah for demand four weeks prior to the service of notice. The trial Court, after the above admission, proceeded to reject the plaint under Order VII Rules 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C. For the following reasons:- "11. Order-20 of C.P.C. In its rule-5 requires recording of findings upon each and every issue alongwith reasons therefor unless finding upon any one or more the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. This case comes within the abovenoted statutory exception of aforesaid provision of C.P.C. Viewed in the perspective of abovecited admission on the part of the plaintiff, his plaint discloses no cause of action. Moreso, it appears to be barred by law because of non- preservation of pre-emptive rights and their conseqeunt extinguishment as laid down in section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987 because the plaintiff is proved to have admitted by saying in his cross-examination a fact as to sending of one Asmat Ullah for making demand four weeks prior to notice. He ought to have made Talb-e-Ishhad within two weeks of Talb-e-Muwathibat. His own admission goes to disprove his case in so far as factum as to Talb-e-Ishhad is concerned. The plaint in hand merits outright rejection as required of Order 7 Rules 11 (a) and (d) of C.P.C. Read with mandatory provision of section 13 of the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act, 1987. I am further of the view that further process of this suit will be a mere exercise in futility because ultimate fate of this suit will be its dismissal in view of abovenoted admission on the part of the plaintiff. Authoritative judicial pronouncements relied upon and produced by counsel for the vendee/defendant are supportive of all what he has stated at the Bar. For aforesaid reasons, this issue deserves decision in the negative. This application is accordingly accepted. Eventually, I am having no other option but to say that this plaint merits outright rejection. The same is, ex consequenti, rejected but with no order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room after completion."
' Against the above judgment/decree, the petitioner filed appeals before the Additional District Judge, Lakki, and then civil revisions before the Peshawar High Court without any success. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard Mian Younas Shah, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, and Mr. Jan Muhammad Khan, learned Advocate-on- Record for respondent No, l/caveator. We are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether the Trial Court on the basis of above admission on the part of the petitioner in his cross-examination in one of the suits could have rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. Without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to produce his remaining evidence. Leave is, accordingly, granted.