MUHAMMAD SHOIB Versus MEMBER (REVENUE)

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑In all these petitions filed by vendees in separate pre‑emption matters, their respective counsel made statements that no decree has so far been passed in favour of the respondent s‑pre‑emptors in these cases at any stage before the 31st of July, 1986 when the judgment of this Court in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah (P L D 1986 S.C. 360) came into effect. That being so, as held in this Court's judgment in the case of Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (C.A.208/80 and other matters decided on 2‑5‑1988, P L D 1988 S C 287) no decree can be passed now after the said date‑in favour of the pre‑emptors‑on any ground co‑ol.Nnership contiguity etc.

2. If it is correct that no decree has been passed in favour of such respondents‑pre‑emptors at any stage prior to the 31st of July, 1986, no decree can now be passed in their favour in view of the judgment in the case of Sardar Ali and others. This plea, however, will have to be raised before the Courts where the matters are now pending.

3. With these observations, these petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous.

4. M. B.A./M‑444/S Petitions dismissed.