2008 SCMR 647 (PLP)

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.

This petition under Article 185(3) of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has been directed against the judgment, dated 25-10-2000 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers in the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in a regular second appeal arising out of a pre-emption suit.

2. The facts in small compass are that petitioners purchased suit-land vide registered sale-deed 24-6-1974 and respondents while claiming superior right of pre-emption on the basis of ownership in the estate, pre-empted the sale. The suit was defended by the petitioners with the assertion that they by virtue of mutation, dated 12-6-1974 having purchased land prior to the sale, were also holding ownership in the estate and the pre-emptors had no better right of pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Judge but in appeal preferred by the respondents, the Appellate Court held that the sale on the basis of which petitioners (vendees) claimed superior right of pre-emption, was pre-empted by one Muhammad Ramzan in a suit for pre-emption and decree was passed in his favour which was also executed and consequently, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with the observation that vendees were no more owner in the estate at the time of dismissal of suit by the trial Court. The learned Judge in the High Court after detail discussion of the matter, held that the petitioners having lost their status as owner in the estate, would not be in a position to defeat the pre-emption suit.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners while repeating the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners before the High Court in second appeal, has contended that the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court by misreading of evidence, came to a conclusion contrary to the correct factual position on record and in consequence thereto, the petitioners were wrongly non-suited. Learned counsel, however, has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other defect in the concurrent findings of the two Courts calling for our interference. This is not denied that the sale, on the basis of which petitioners became owner in the estate prior to the sale, subject-matter of dispute was pre-empted by one Muhammad Ramzan and decree passed in the suit filed by him was also executed and inconsequence thereto, the petitioners seized to be the owner in the estate to defeat the suit.

4. We having carefully perused the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to find out any factual or legal defect or infirmity 'in the concurrent finding of two Courts on a question of fact and consequently, would take no exception to the judgment of the High Court impugned in this petition. Learned counsel has raised no order point.

5. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no substance in this petition and same is accordingly dismissed. Leave is refused. H.B.T./K-40/SC Petition dismissed.