1995SCMR484 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J: ‑‑Facts giving rise to this petition for leave to appeal are that on 19‑6‑1976 Muhammad Ashiq son of Ali Nawaz sold land measuring 15‑1/2 Kanals to Ghulam Muhammad predecessor of the petitioners. Mst. Nathi respondent herein, mother of the vendor, instituted a suit for possession through pre‑emption on 16‑7‑1976. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed as many as eight issues on 18‑12‑1976. After recording the evidence of the plaintiff the trial Court adjourned the suit for defendants' evidence but before it could be recorded, his son Shabbir Hussain came up with the, proposal that in case the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.18,000 as the price of the land in dispute the suit may be decreed. Muhammad Shabbir attorney of the plaintiff accepted the offer and the suit was decreed by the trial Court subject to payment of Rs.18,000 vide order dated 2‑6‑1982. The sale price was deposited by the plaintiff within the time fixed by the Court.

2. On 23‑8‑1982 the plaintiff moved an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. for setting aside the decree on the ground that Muhammad Shabbir had no authority to accept the offer and his act was not binding on her. In the meantime Ghulam Muhammad had died. His successors, the petitioners herein, resisted the application. After the plaintiff's evidence was recorded on the application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C., the counsel for the petitioners herein agreed to the setting aside of the consent ‑ decree upon which the same was set aside and the trial Court proceeded with the trial of the suit which was dismissed mainly on account of bar for passing of afresh decree on or after 31‑7‑1986 as held in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad All and others (PLD 1988 SC 287). The trial Court also gave findings on merits. However the learned Appellate Court confined itself to the application of the above bar and upheld the finding of the trial Court. The plaintiff challenged the above order through Civil Revision No. 695/1989 which was allowed holding that the ‑ Courts below "wrongly found bar for them for passing a fresh decree in the pre‑emption suit". Reliance was placed on Ghulam Rasool and 2 others v. Faiz Bakhsh (1992 SCMR 1328) and Bahadur Khan and others v. Muhammad Yousuf (1992 SCMR 2117) and setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge the case was remanded to him for deciding the appeal "on all issues afresh in accordance with law". Hence this petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no substance in the contention that no fresh decree could be passed after the target date. The learned Judge in Chambers relied on 1992 SCMR 1328 and 1992 SCMR 2117 to hold that the Courts below "wrongly found bar for them for passing a fresh decree in the pre‑ emption suit" and his finding is unexceptionable. No legal or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment has been pointed out therefore, no interference by this Court is called for. The petition is dismissed and leave refused. AA./H‑202/S Leave refused.