' The petitioner being dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of the two forums below whereby his suit was rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. By the Civil Judge-III D.I.Khan on 3-10-1998 and District Judge D.I. Khan on 2-11-1998 respectively, has filed the instant revision petition for setting aside the same.
2. The epitome of the matter is that the petitioner, Mst. Saeeda Bibi, filed a suit for pre-emption against the respondent Ghulam Rasool, whereby she pre-empted an area of 146 Kanals, 4 Marlas, which according to the averments of the plaint was purchased by the respondent vide Mutation No,1864 attested on 20-2-1998 for a sum of Rs,20,000 on all the three grounds, i.e. Shafi Sharik, Shafi Khalit and Shafi Jar.
3. On his appearance the Court, the defendant/respondent resisted the suit by submitting his written statement, wherein inter alia, he averred that he has not purchased any land on the basis of the said mutation from Ghulam Qasim and Muhammad Qasim, sons of Ghulam Akbar, who were shown to be the vendors in the abovementioned mutation. He also stated that the suit land was alienated to him through an exchange Mutation No,370 attested on 14-2-1977 and since then he became owner of the suit property, therefore, the question of its re-purchase does not arise.
Alongwith the written reply, the respondent filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint which was posted to 15-9-1998 for replication and arguments. On 28-9-1998, the case was argued from both the sides and resultantly on 3-10-1998 the learned Civil Judge-III D.I.Khan passed an order of rejection of the plaint as prayed for which was maintained in appeal by the learned appellate Court. Hence the instant revision petition.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the rejection of plaint is the result of mis- conception of the true facts of the case and misapplication of law. According to him, the suit land was virtually purchased by the respondent and a mutation of sale was duly attested by the Revenue Officer on 20-2-1998. The plea of the respondent that he has obtained this property in exchange vide Mutation No, 371 dated 14-2-1977 is a device manufactured by him in order to defeat the pre-emptive rights of the petitioner. He maintained that the said plea is further belied by the fact that another Mutation No, 851 attested on 8-4-1885 has emerged through which the said land was mutated in the names of Ghulam Qasim and Ghulam Hasim, sons of Muhammad Akbar and Muhammad Akbar son of Bakhsh, wherein khasra No, 1770 is duly mentioned and, as such, from the said mutation it is evident that the respondent was not the owner of the suit land on the strength of the exchange Mutation No, 370 as against Mutation No, 371. He contended that in the above circumstances, both the Courts below were incorrect in their conclusion that the suit land was the ownership of the respondent on the basis of the exchange mutation.
5. On the other side, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission of the petitioner's counsel by contending that the respondent has never purchased the suit land vide Mutation No, 1864 as claimed by the plaintiff/petitioner. The suit land was in fact transferred to him through Mutation No,370 against Mutation No,371 being an exchange transaction on one and the same date i.e. 14-2-1977. He urged that Mutation No, 851 was also bogus and the same has been challenged by the respondent through a Civil Suit Bearing No, 193/1 filed on 2-4- 1998 soon after getting knowledge about the said mutation which is pending in the civil Court. He further argued that in view of the exchange Mutation No, 370 (ibid), the respondent has also challenged the correctness and legality of Mutation No, 1864 by filing a suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge D.I.Khan, Wherein the plaintiff has categorically mentioned that the entry and attestastion of Mutation No,1864 is incorrect, because the same property comprising Khasra No,1770 measuring 146 Kanals, 4 Marlas has already been transferred in the name of the respondent by way of an exchange. Copies of both the said suits/plaints have been placed on the record.
6. I have heard the rival arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. Mutation Nos. 370 and 371 attested on 14-2-1977 have not been cancelled and still hold the field. It is Mutation No, 370 through which the land in dispute in the instant suit of pre-emption had been transferred to the respondent since 14-2-1977 who are still in possession thereof. So far as the subsequent Mutation No, 851 dated 8-4-1985 and mutation No, 1864 dated 20-2-1998 are concerned, the same are the subject-matter of civil suit pending adjudication in the competent Court of law and presently it is beyond the scope of reasons as to how did the respondent purchased the property which was already in his possession as an owner.
The respondent has categorically denied the purchase by way of Mutation No, 1864 and, as such, the plaintiff/petitioner has got no right of pre-emption and no cause of action. It is a settled position of law that the right of pre-emption can be exercised only against the property which is sold for consideration.
7. In view of the above discussion, I see no legal infirmity in the impugned concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below which are upheld accordingly and the revision petition in hand being devoid of any meritable consideration is, therefore, dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.