' This is a revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, dated 20-4-1985 confirming the judgment and decree, dated 19-9-1984 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pasrur whereby the suit for possession through pre-emption filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The background of the case is that the petitioner filed a suit for possession through pre-emption with the averments that Muhammad Alim vendor sold the disputed land measuring 5 Marlas to the respondent on 2-11-1980 through registered sale-deed for a price of Rs,6,500 but in order to defeat the preferential rights of the petitioner, ostensible sale price of Rs,7,500 was mentioned in the sale- deed and that the petitioner being the real brother and collateral of the vendor has a superior right of pre-emption against the respondent. The suit was resisted and the following issues were framed from the pleadings of the parties by the learned Civil Judge:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff possesses superior right of pre-emption? OPP.
(2) Whether a sum of Rs,7,500 was fixed in good faith as the sale price of the suit land or was actually paid? OPD.
(3) If not so, what was the market value at the time of sale? OP Parties.
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to sue? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is for partial pre-emption? OPD.
(6) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD.
(7) Whether the defendant has made any improvements upon the suit land, if so, to what extent and to what effect? 01/D.
(8) Whether the suit property is not preemptible? OPD,
(9) Whether Mehmooda Begum has got no dower to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff?
OPD.
(10) Relief.
' The parties led their respective evidence and the learned trial Court heard the arguments and dismissed the suit, thereafter an appeal was prefered which also made the same fate.
3. Now in revision, the petitioner has taken the stand that the piece of land, subject-matter of the pre-emption suit filed by the petitioner, is agricultural land and the mere fact that it has been included in the Municipal Limits of Town of Chawinda does not make it urban immovable property especially in view of the observations made by the learned trial Judge after inspection that it is surrounded by agricultural land.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has taken stand whatever may be the nature of land as the plaintiff has failed in .The trial forum and also remained unsuccessful in appeal before 31st July, 1986. The present revision petition is not competent in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Said Kamal Shah's case (PLD 1986 SC 360), Muhammad Shoib's case (PLD 1988 SC 355), PLD 1990 SC 865 and PLD 1990 SC 1060.
5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner when confronted with this situation had no answer.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Government of N. -W. F .P. Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) held that the provisions of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 ceased to have effect from 31-7-1986 which was subsequently elaborated in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287) in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court had framed question No,2 in the following terms:-- "Whether the plaintiff in a preemption suit having failed in the trial forum and having remained unsuccessful in obtaining a decree in his favour in appeal, revision or writ petition before the 31st July, 1986 can be granted a decree by any of the higher forum where his case was pending on that date including the Supreme Court?"
' The answer to this question was returned in the negative.
7. The above proposition was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Shoib and others v. Member (Revenue) and others (PLD 1988 SC 355) in the following words:- "In all these petitions filed by vendees in separate pre-emption matters, their respective counsel made statements that no decree has so far been passed in favour of the respondents-pre- emptors in these cases at any stage before the 31st of July, 1986 when the judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) came into effect. That being so, as held in this Court's judgment in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (C.A. No,208 of 1980 and other matters decided on 2-5-1988, PLD 1988 SC 287) no decree can be passed now after the said date in favour of the pre-emptors on any ground co-ownership contiguity etc. ' If it is correct that no decree has been passed in favour of such respondents-pre-emptors at any stage prior to the 31st of July, 1986, no decree can now be passed in their favour in view of the judgment in the case of Sardar All and others. This plea, however, will have to be raised before the Courts where the matters are now pending.
' With these observations, these petitions are dismissed as having been infructuous."
' In Suo Motu Shariat Review Petition No, 1-R of 1989 (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 865) the order of the Court was as under:-- "ORDER OF THE COURT {{URDU TEXT}} ' The same view was also taken in Sultan and another v. Habib Ahmad and others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 897) and Muhammad Yasin and others v. Khan Muhammad and others (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1060).
8. In view of the above discussions, in the present case in which admittedly the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Pasrur on 19-9-1984 and his appeal was dismissed on 20-4-1985 and he remained unsuccessful in obtaining a decree in his favour in appeal, revision or writ petition before 31-7-1986, no decree can be granted by this Court. Even otherwise both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of facts that the suit of the petitioner was not maintainable as the suit land was not pre-emptible.
9. For the above reasons, the revision petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.