1982 PLP 172 (SCMR)

Talib H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Ali Imam Naqvi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Mehdi Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Date of hearing : 18th October, 1981. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.‑This petition is directed against the order dated 8‑2‑1981 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissing the Civil Revision Petition (No. 80‑D/81) of the petitioners in the main. The relevant facts briefly stated are that Muhammad Amir Khan sold the land in dispute measuring 70 kanals 12 marlas to the petitioners through a registered sale deed executed on 3‑6‑1977 for a consideration of Rs. 53,

000. This sale was preempted by the respondent, Halim Khan, on the plea of superior right of pre‑emption. This was claimed on the ground that he was. the real brother of the vendor, yak jadi waris hazgasht, owner of the khata''1 and owner in the village. The learned trial Judge, by his order dated 20‑2‑1980, decreed the suit of Halim Khan, respondent herein, holding that he had a superior right of pre‑emption being brother of the vendor. He also reduced the price of the land and decreed the suit for a consideration of Rs. 37,

685. An appeal was filed by the petitioners against the above judgment and decree, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali on 17‑i‑1981. The petitioners then filed a civil revision (C. R. P. No. 80/D/81) before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. The learned Judge of the said Court heard this matter and modified the judgment and decree of the Courts below to the extent that the respondent was directed to deposit Rs. 53,000 as the price of the land but otherwise did not interfere with the judgment of the Court below on the ground that the question whether the respondent was the brother of the vendor or not was a question of fact and not opened to reconsideration in a civil revision. The revision was disposed of in the above terms on 8‑2‑1981. Hence this petition for leave to appeal. Mr. Talib H. Rizvi, inter alia, argued that even if it was assumed that the question of relationship was purely a question of fact the finding that the respondent was the brother of the vendor and, therefore, had a superior right of pre‑emption was based on misreading of evidence and referred to certain circumstances in support of this contention. After hearing Mr. Rizvi we are of the view that the criticism made by him merely pertains to the question of appreciation of evidence being purely the question of fact and having been found against the petitioners, both by the trial Court and the appellate Court (Additional District Judge) the same could not be interfered with in a civil revision by the high court. No ground for interference is made out and this petition must, therefore, fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.