MUHAMMAD SHAFI and others vs MUHAMMAD BOOTA and others

ORDER

1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment. Dated 27-10-2000 of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No, 2440 of 1989 filed by the respondents was accepted setting aside the order, dated 19-4-1989 passed by the learned District Judge, Sialkot, and consequently the earlier order, dated 12-7-1988 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, was restored.

2. ' Briefly stated the facts leading to the disposal of this petition are that Shukar Din, predecessor-in- interest of the respondents, filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against the petitioners on 1-4-1974 for sale of the disputed property conducted on 5-4-1973. The same was resisted by the petitioners. Issues were framed, the parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court through its judgment, dated 21-1(4-1975 decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the petitionersidefendants was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, through his judgment, dated 10-7- 1977 who remanded the case to the trial Court for decision afresh after providing full opportunity to the parties for producing their evidence.

3. ' Subsequently to the remand order, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, again decreed the suit through his judgment, dated 7-10-1980. The appeal preferred by the petitioners against the above judgment of the trial Court was dismissed on 14-9-1982 by the Appellate Court and the R.S.A. Filed by the petitioners before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, also met the same fate.

4. ' After conclusion of this litigation, it transpired that in the judgment, dated 7-10-1980 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot. After remand, the decree was passed only against defendant No,1/petitioner No, 1 . Faced with this situation, Shukar Din pre-emptor, moved an application on 18- 5-1987 under section 152, C.P.C. For correction of the same as the names of other defendants/respondents were inadvertently omitted by the learned trial Court in its judgment.

5. Dated 7-10-1980.

6. ' This was objected to by the petitioners and the learned senior Civil Judge Sialkot through his judgment, dated 12-7-1988 accepted the application and incorporated the words "decreeing the suit against all the defendants".

7. ' The respondents filed a revision petition before the learned District Judge Sialkot against the above order which was accepted by him through his order, dated 19-4-1989 on the ground that after conferment of original decree by the First Appellate Court the learned trial Judge had no jurisdiction to correct the same this order was assailed before the Lahore High Court Lahore through Writ Petition No,2440 of 1989 which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge through his judgment, dated 27-10-2000, impugned herein hence this petition for leave to appeal.

8. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the entire material placed on record with his assistance. At the very outset, we must record our regrets that initially the suit in this case was filed as far back as on 1-4-1974, more than a quarter of a century ago. Till date the petitioners have embroiled the respondents in an uncalled for litigation for no fault of them. The original decree was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sialkot, in post-remand proceedings on 7-10-1980. The learned Trial Judge inadvertently, as reflected from his judgment, omitted the names of other defendants/petitioners and passed the decree only against defendant No, 1/petitioner No,

1. The entire reading of the above judgment demonstrates that decree was passed against all the defendants/petitionersas the learned trial Judge directed the pre-emptor to pay the entire price stated by the vendee. Even the tenor of the judgment demonstrates that it was passed for the entire land, subject-matter of the present petition. It is an established principle of law that an act of the Court shall not prejudice any person. This Court has time and again stated authoritatively that technical objections should not come in the way of dispensation of complete and substantial justice. Reliance in this respect A is placed upon Sajawal Khan v. Wali Muhammad and others 2002 SCM R 134, Chaudhary Ghulam Ghaus through Legal Heirs v. Saifullah and another 2001 SCM R 159, Imran Sharif and 7 others v. The State 2001 SCM R 424 and Nazir Ahmed and another v. Muhammad Din and another 2000 SCM R 440.

9. ' Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any merit and force is hereby dismissed and leave refused.