' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- After declaration made in the case of Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360 that provision of Punjab Preemption Act, 1913 were repugnant to Injunctions of Quran and Sunnah of Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.), no law of pre-emption was promulgated up to 1991 when Punjab Pre-emption Ordinance No,IX of 1991 was promulgated which was converted into Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991. The suit filed by the respondent to pre-empt the sale made in favour of the petitioners in the year 1988 when there was no statutory law of pre-emption claiming right of pre-emption on the grounds available under the said Pre-emption Act alleging that requirements of Talbs had already been complied with, was dismissed on 21-6-1990. After promulgation of the said Pre-emption Act, an application was made by the respondents under section 35 thereof for revival of the suit which was revived on 28-5-1991.
When the suit was dismissed on 21-6-1990, the evidence in rebuttal of the plaintiff-respondent was still to be recorded and he had also reserved his right to appear as his own witness to make statement in affirmative also. Issue No,5 related to Talbs therefore, while appearing in rebuttal as his own witness, he had to state about making of Talbs after the revival of the suit. The trial Court without granting opportunity to him to complete his evidence in rebuttal and make a statement in affirmative also, dismissed the suit for want of evidence on Talbs, through judgment, dated 8-6- 1991. The appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed through judgment dated 30-3-1992 by the learned Additional District Judge against which revision petition filed by them has been accepted through the impugned judgment dated 5-10-2001 by the Lahore High Court and the case remanded to the trial Court to proceed from the stage when the same was dismissed on 21-6-1990 against which leave is sought.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade us that the judgment of the High Court is violative of any law. It is exactly in accordance with section 35 of the said Act, therefore, it was rightly directed that the suit should proceed from the stage when it was dismissed on 21-6-1990.
3. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed and leave refused.