1995SCMR187 (PLP)

‑‑‑‑S. 15‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Pre‑emption decree passed in favour of respondents attained finality‑‑‑Petitioners acquiring lease in respect of land in question in 1984 (after pre‑emption decree had already been passed) from judgment‑debtors (vendees)‑‑‑Petitioners were deriving their alleged right from judgment‑debtors and thus, they could not defeat pre emption decree which had attained finality‑‑‑Dismissal of petitioner's suit on the ground that they were not a party to suit (on the basis of alleged lease) was in consonance with law‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Ch. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafferi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Naveed Shehryar, Advocate Supreme Court and MA. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th May, 1994. AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 3‑4‑1993 passed by a‑learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No. 1463 of 1991 filed by the petitioners against the rejection of the plaint by the trial Court and affirmation of the same by the learned Appellate Court by orders dated 3‑6‑1991 and 17‑7‑1991 respectively, dismissing the same.

2. The brief facts are that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a pre‑emotion suit against respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in respect of suit agricultural land, which was decreed by the trial Court on 13‑3‑1978. The above decree was affirmed in appeal by the learned Additional District, Judge, Chiniot, a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in second appeal and by this Court by declining a petition for leave to appeal. Thus, the pre‑emotion decree passed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 acquired finality. However, when they sought the execution of the above decree, the respondents attempted to frustrate the execution of the above decree by filing, inter alia, above civil suits, appeal and revision on the ground that they were the tenants of the suit land but their above attempt failed in view of the above orders passed by the above Courts. The petitioners have, therefore, filed present petition for leave to appeal against the above order dated 3‑4‑1993 of the learned Judge in Chambers.

3. In support of the above petition, Chaudhry Khan Muhammad Bajwa, learned Advocate Supreme Court; appearing for the petitioners, has contended that since the petitioners were not party to the above pre‑emotion proceedings, they were entitled to maintain the above suit. The above contention is devoid of any force as admittedly the petitioners had allegedly acquired lease in 1984 in respect of the suit land after the pre‑emotion decree had already been passed on 13‑3‑1978. They were deriving their alleged right from the judgment‑debtor and, therefore, they cannot defeat the' above pre‑emotion decree which acquired the finality. In our view the impugned judgment is in consonance with law. Leave is refused. AA./M‑2066/S Leave refused.