Law:

Section:

Punjab Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)--- ----S. 5---Suit for possession through pre-emption---Defendant contested suit---At the time of recording evidence of defendant's witnesses, the counsel for the plaintiffs made an offer that if lambardar made a statement on oath at Holy Quran that at the time of purchase of disputed land by the defendant, defendant had asked the plaintiffs to purchase the land, suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed---Trial Court after recording statement of lambardar dismissed the suit--Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal---Plaintiffs asserted that lambardar had not made the statement according to the terms of reference---Validity---Lambardar did make a statement on oath on the Holy Quran but stated that he himself had offered the property to the plaintiff before its purchase by the vendee---Lambardar had no authority to offer the land to the plaintiff before its purchase by the vendee, therefore, the statement made by him that he himself had offered the disputed property to the plaintiffs had no sanctity in the eyes of law---Statement on oath demanded by the plaintiff was never made either verbatim or in letter and spirit---Suit could not be dismissed on the said statement of lambardar---High Court allowed the revision petition and remanded the case to Trial Court after recording of remaining evidence and to decide the matter on merits. Athar Rehman Khan for Petitioners. Bashir Ahmad Chaudhry for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 2009. JUDGMENT ARSHAD MAHMOOD, J.---Alia and Naika sons of Saadly petitioners through this civil revision assail the concurrent dismissal of their suit for possession through pre-emption recorded vide judgments and decrees, dated 22-4-1992 and 22-3-1993 of the learned Civil Judge Sahiwal and learned Additional District Judge Sahiwal, respectively. 2. Facts of the ease in a narrow compass are that petitioners filed a suit for possession by way of pre-emption against the respondent in respect of one kanal of land sold by Shara through mutation, dated 8-11-1989. The suit was resisted by submitting written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues on the controversial pleadings of the parties.…