' By the impugned judgment the learned Judge in the High Court while dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellant (plaintiff) maintained the judgment of the Appellate Court and upheld the order of rejection of plaint passed by the trial Court. The appellant had filed suit for possession through pre-emption and after filing of written statement the suit proceeded for some time in the trial Court and evidence was recorded. However, at later stage the defendant/respondents submitted application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint on the ground that there was no law of pre-emption, therefore, right of pre-emption could not be enforced and that no "Talab" had been made and, therefore, the suit could not be decreed.
This application was accepted and the plaint was rejected. This order was affirmed in appeal and maintained in revision.
2. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the rule laid down in PLD 1989 SC 314 and PLD 1993 SC 1083, the pre-emption suits were to be regulated by the principle of Islamic Law even if there was no statutory law governing pre-emption. He also referred to para. 4 in the plaint to prove that the allegation regarding both the "Talabs" had been made. In view of the application of Islamic Law as enunciated in the above judgments and on account of pleadings, we are of the view that the case could be decided on its own merits. The impugned orders are, therefore, rightly not maintainable. Resultantly, we accept this appeal, set. Aside the impugned order and remand the case on the trial Court for fresh decision on merits.