1989 PLP 2065 (SCMR)

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑The petitioner Maula Bakhsh seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, passed in Civil Revision No.158‑D of 1989 whereby his revision against the order of Addl. District Judge, Kasur was dismissed. Fatima sold the land in question to Wali Muhammad on 24‑1‑1981. Maula Bakhsh petitioner herein pre‑empted the sale and got an ex parte decree in his favour on 9‑10‑1982. During the pendency of the suit Wali Muhammad vendee re‑sold the suit land to Mst.Azra Bibi respondent herein, daughter of the vendor in recognition of her pre‑emptive right. The petitioner during the execution of the decree came to know of the sale in favour of MstAzra Bibr who resisted the execution application claiming that she being in possession of superior right, the decree in favour of Maula Bakhsh is ineffective against her interest. She moved an application before the executing Court but it was dismissed on technical ground. She filed the present suit for declaration that she is the owner by virtue of sale in her favour by the vendee in recognition of her superior right of pre‑emption and the suit of Maula Bakhsh without making her a party in the pre‑emption suit, is void and ineffective against her right. The suit was contested on various issues which was dismissed as barred by section 47 of C.P.C. Her appeal before the Addl. District Judge Kasur was accepted vide order dated 7‑1‑1989. A revision petition preferred by Maula Bakhsh petitioner before the Lahore High Court was dismissed vide order dated 11‑4‑1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contested on the ground that the conversion of the suit into application within the meaning of section 47, subsection (2), C.P.C. was not warranted and thus wrongly so allowed. He also urged that the collusion between Wali Muhammad vendee with Mst Azra Bibi has deprived the petitioner of the fruit of his decree. These are the points which he has already urged before the High Court. The sale on behalf of Wali h1uharnmad in favour of Azra Bibi through a registered deed according to law is a notice to the public at large and the Courts have correctly exercised their discretion in favour of a `pardanasheen' lady and her application before the executing Court was dismissed on technical ground, which is not final determination of the controversy between the parties. She was a necessary party, to the suit and her non‑impleadment in the pre‑emption suit by the petitioner would not deprive her of the fruit of her own pre‑emptive right. The entire case of the petitioner is based on the question of fact which the learned High Court has thoroughly scrutinized and the view taken by it while exercising its revisional jurisdiction is perfectly in accordance with law which calls for no interference. The petition is therefore, dismissed. A.A./M‑922/5 Petition dismissed.