1997 PLP 938 (SCMR)

(3) Whether the sale amount of Rs. twenty thousand was fixed and paid in good faith? (4) Whether the plaintiff has got the superior right of pre‑emption and is entitled to the decree as prayed for? (5) Relief." The parties produced their evidence. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 13‑9‑1989 on the ground that the plaintiffs had failed to make Talabs required under section 13 of the N‑W‑F‑P. Pre‑emption Act, 1987. The appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kohat on 7‑2‑1990. Feeling aggrieved thereby, he filed revision petition before the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which was accepted on 27‑3‑1991 remanding the case to the trial Court for recording its findings on the issues to be framed regarding actual payment of sale consideration and the market value of the suit land after giving opportunity to the parties of leading their evidence.

2. On remand, learned Civil Judge, Kohat, framed the following additional issue on 11‑7‑1991:‑‑ "What is market value of the suit land?" On 18‑7‑1991, Muhammad Rafiq plaintiff/respondent filed an application before the Civil Judge wherein he admitted the sale price mentioned in the mutation and showed his willingness to pay the same. In view of this development, the parties declined to produce evidence on the additional issue. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Civil Judge decreed the suit subject to the payment of Rs.20,000 vide judgment dated 30‑7‑1991. The appeal filed by Zakaria Khan defendant against this judgment and decree was dismissed by the District Judge on 9‑2‑1994. Feeling not satisfied with the judgment and decree of the District Judge, the petitioner fled revision petition in the High Court which too was dismissed vide impugned judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that after the remand of the case for fresh decision, the trial Court was obliged to give its own findings on all issues including the issue of Talab, but it has failed to do so.

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not agree with him. We find that the High Court in remand order dated 27‑3‑1991 has finally decided the issue of Talab. The relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment of the High Court reads as follows:‑‑ "From the preponderance of evidence, referred to above, it stands proved that plaintiff/pre‑emptor did comply with the requirement of law and was successful in proving it. Both the Courts below have, however, ignored the material evidence and have based their finding on wrong premises, hence acted illegally and with material irregularity in excess of their jurisdiction. The findings of the Courts below on Issues Nos.4, 6 and 7 are, therefore, reversed. It is regrettable that though these are pre‑emption cases, yet no issues regarding payment of sale consideration and market value of the suit land have been framed. I, therefore, remand both these cases to the trial Court for its findings on the issues to be framed, regarding payment of sale consideration alleged by the vendee and the market value of the suit land after giving the parties opportunity of leading of their evidence." It is thus very much clear that after reversing the findings of the trial Court on issue of Talab, the High Court had remanded the case to the trial Court for determination of sale price and market value of the suit land and for nothing more or less. Complying with the remand order, the trial Court framed additional issue, which due to subsequent development, as stated above, became redundant. We do not see any infirmity in the impugned judgment.

5. The result is that this petition fails, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. A.A/Z‑206/S‑ Leave refused.