' Mst. Ghulam Zohra, was recorded as owner of 21 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land in Khasra No, 442, Khewat and Khatauni Nos. 110/172 Mouza Noorwal, Tehsil and District Chakwal. She sold the land in dispute through registered sale-deed dated 12-2-1983 to the defendant/respondent No,
1. The plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for declaration claiming to be owner in possession of 1/2 share in the suit land on the ground that he was an occupancy tenant and pre-empted the remaining 1/2 share as co- sharer/owner in the estate. The suit was resisted by the defendants.
' The following issues were framed:--
(1) Whether the suit has been correctly valued for the purposes of court-fees and jurisdiction? If so, what is the correct valuation and its effect? OPP
(2) Whether the Central Government, and others as named in the preliminary objection, are necessary parties? OPD
(3) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction in the matter? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff was occupancy tenant of the suit land? OPP
(7) If issue No, 6 above is proved, whether the plaintiff became owner of 1/2 share of the suit land through operation of law? OPP
(8) If issue No, 7 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for? OPP
(9) Whether the plaintiff has got a superior right of pre-emption qua the vendee-defendant in respect of remaining half of the suit land? OPP
(10) Whether the sale price of the suit land was fixed in good faith or actually paid? OPD
(11) If issue No, 10 above is not proved, what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale? OPP (11-A) Whether the defendant is entitled to get Rs,6,500 as incidental charges in case of decree of the suit? OPD
(12) Relief, The learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff vide his judgment/decree dated 28-7-1987.
However, the appeal against the judgment/decree of the trial Court was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment/decree dated 8-10-1988 and the suit of the plaintiff- petitioner was dismissed mainly on the ground that suit for declaration alongwith pre-emption was not competent.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that he gives up his claim of pre-emption and would like to pursue the suit for declaration only.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant has opposed that the same cannot be done at this stage.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has no merit. The petitioner can give up any of the reliefs claimed and retain the other. This would not change the nature of the suit. By foregoing the plea of pre-emption, nothing new was being introduced in the plaint. The learned Additional District Judge has not given his findings on Issues Nos. 6, 7 and 8.
5. For what has been stated above, this revision petition is partly allowed and the case is remanded to the learned Additional District Judge for re-writing judgment on Issues Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in accordance with law.