' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 27th March, 2002 passed by Lahore High Court. Lahore whereby civil revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent Mst. Surraya Begum filed a suit on 12th December, 1996 in the Court of Civil Judge, Pasrur for possession through pre-emption against Muhammad Anwar petitioner/defendant regarding suit property i.e, a shop situated in Chiwinda Town, Tehsil Pasrur, District Sialkot. Petitioner/defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. Trial Court framed issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties. Both the parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned Trial Judge, after having gone through the evidence available on record and hearing both the parties, vide judgment, dated 24th May, 1999 decreed the suit in favour of respondent/plaintiff. Petitioner-defendant feeling dissatisfied from the judgment of the Trial Court appealed before Additional District Judge, Pasrur, who vide judgment, dated 8th February, 2002 dismissed the same. Petitioner/defendant feeling aggrieved from the judgments of Trial and Appellate Courts, filed civil revision before Lahore High Court, Lahore, which too met the same fate by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filen.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner/defendant contended that respondent-plaintiff initially filed a suit on 27th August, 1995 for possession of the property through right of pre-emption and that suit, however, was withdrawn without permission of the Court and fresh plaint-suit on the same cause of action was filed on 14th September, 1998. Therefore, according to him, the suit being incompetent was liable to be dismissed and the judgment/decree finally passed on it is liable to be set aside being not sustainable in the eye of law.
4. It is important to note that perusal of the plaint, dated 27th August, 1995 indicates that the petitioner/defendant after having paid total price of sale consideration have taken over the possession of the property. In other words, he was enjoying full rights in the subject property. The petitioner/defendant however, filed written statement wherein he categorically stated that the suit is incompetent because sale-deed has not been executed. Admittedly, after filing written statement, sale-deed was also executed by the vendee and vendor on 12th November, 1996.
Perhaps with a view to frustrate the, suit, which was filed by the respondent earlier on 21st August, .1995. Thereafter, in order to overcome this difficulty, the respondent/pre-emptor instituted fresh suit on 14th September,' 1998 being his right of pre-emption on sale-deed date 12th November, 1996. Undoubtedly, there was no permission to file fresh suit but in such view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is estopped by his own conduct to agitate the A maintainability of the suit or otherwise, because he attempted to frustrate the first suit filed by respondent on the ground that it is incompetent because sale had not taken place and thereafter he also got executed a sale-deed, dated 12th November, 1996. As such under these circumstances filing of fresh suit by respondent had not caused any injustice to petitioner/defendant.
' Therefore, in view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for exercise of jurisdiction by this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as such petition is dismissed and leave declined.