' Ghulam Hussain, etc., filed a suit for possession through preemption in regard to the land measuring 47 Kanals situated in Mauza Raitri, Tehsil Kallur Kot District Bhakkar for consideration of Rs,55,000. This suit was instituted on 17-6-1985. The learned trial Court after framing issues and recording evidence of the parties decreed the suit vide judgment/decree dated 13-7-1987 in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs and against the defendants of Rs,55,000 as sale price + Rs,4,125 as incidental charges total Rs,59,125.
2. Defendants feeling aggrieved by the abovesaid judgment/decree filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bhakkar vide judgment/decree dated 27-3-1991.
Thereafter, Ghulam Hussain, etc. Filed an application seeking permission to fix time for deposit of decretal amount. This application was contested by the respondents/petitioners and the learned District Judge vide order, dated 14-7-1991 allowed the same and directed the petitioners/respondents to deposit the decretal amount excluding Zar-i-Panjum till 31-7-1991 failing which the suit shall be deemed to have been dismissed. The present civil revision has been directed against the judgment/decree dated 13-7-1987, judgment dated 27-3-1991 and the order, dated 14-7-1991.
3. Mr. Khalid Ikram Khatana, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that admittedly the suit was instituted on 30-7-1985 and the decree was passed on 13-7-1987 as the respondents r mained unsuccessful in obtaining decree in their favour before 31-7-1 86, the same cannot be passed thereafter. The impugned judgment bein void ab initio and coram non judice is non-existence in the eye of law and not to be enforced. The subsequent judgments/decrees passed on a void judgment are also of no legal effect.
4. Conversely, Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners did not file any appeal against the impugned judgment/decree, therefore, the present civil revision is not competent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. In Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 Supreme Court 287), their Lordships in para. 5 posed seven questions regarding the applicability of the previous laws of preemption including Question No,2 which reads as under:-- "Whether a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit having failed in the trial forum and having remained unsuccessful in obtaining a decree in his favour even in appeal, revision or writ petition before 31st of July, 1986, can be granted a decree by any of the higher forums where his case was pending on that date including the Supreme Court."
' The answer was given in para. 64 of the judgment at page 344 which reads as under:-- "In the opening part of this judgment, we visualized the various questions vis-a-vis situations which have arisen or might arise in connection with the present controversy. In the light of the discussion and view on the points involved, the answers to Questions Nos.1 to 5 are in negative, while Questions Nos.6 and 7 are answers in the affirmation. These questions and answers would, in our view, resolve most of the controversies. However, if there is different question, or any new situation, arises in any particular case, the same would be resolved by the forum concerned in accordance with principles discussed in this judgment and those underlying the questions posed and answers already rendered."
' Respectfully fallowing the abovesaid dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, since no decree in the present case has been passed before 31-7-1986, therefore, the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court on 13-7-1987 is nullity in the eye of law and the same cannot be sustained. The subsequent judgment/decree order passed on the basis or in advancing cause in the abovesaid decree are also non-existent and of no legal effect. This being no-decree, this civil revision is allowed and the judgment/decree dated 13-7-1987 passed by the trial Court, judgment dated 27-3-1991 passed by the learned District Judge to the extent of not setting aside the judgment/decree passed by the learned trial Court and the order dated 14-7-1991 passed by the learned Appellate Court for allowing the respondents to deposit the decretal amount are set aside as the same are without jurisdiction and without lawful authority. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.