MANZOOR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD HAYAT

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor against the dismissal of his Revision petitions. There are two separate rounds of litigation involved in these cases. In one, the petitioner succeeded in obtaining a pre‑emption decree. In the other, the vendor succeeded in obtaining a decree against the vendee in a suit for declaration resulting in the annulment of the same. The vendee had, according to the learned counsel, conceded the vendor's claim, in this second litigation. This very circumstance as he stated, has been responsible for the petitioner's failure upto the High Court. Obviously, the sale having been annulled, there was nothing left for the petitioner to pre‑empt. The main argument, as noted above, of the learned counsel, is that he having succeeded in the pre‑emption suit, this success could not have been set at naught by a consent decree passed in favour of the vendor, whereby the vendee sought clearly to avoid the effect of the pre‑emption decree.

2. On face, the argument of the learned counsel looks attractive but after hearing him at some length. We find no force in it. The decree passed in favour of the vendor in the declaratory suit, has been upheld throughout. It would not be correct to say that the same was the result of the consent expressed by the vendee; but, as admitted by the learned counsel, it was the result of a full-fledged contest between the vendor and the present petitioner who also, was a party to that second suit. The question of declaration regarding annulment of sale now stands concluded by the findings of fact.

3. No justification has been found to interfere with the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused in both the petitioners.

4. M.Y.H./M‑550/S Leave refused