1988 PLP 1206 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑These two petitions arise out of the same; case, therefore, they are being disposed of together.

2. The respondents side had succeeded in obtaining a pre‑emption decree. The case of petitioners side is that immediately after the decision by the trial Court, there was a compromise between the parties and although the pre‑emption money was deposited by the decree‑holder, the funds were supplied by the judgment‑debtor. One of the conditions of the alleged compromise was that the decree‑holder shall not execute the decree. However, allegedly, the latter went back on the promise and filed application for execution. It was dismissed in 1972. Another application was filed which was allowed ex parte in 1975. The respondents side claimed that possession changed hands as a result of execution; while the petitioners side contended that only constructive possession was delivered to the decree‑holder. Despite the aforementioned execution, the petitioners side filed Objection Application regarding the nature of delivery of possession. It was dismissed. Their appeal was also dismissed by order dated 13‑11‑1975. It was never challenged and became final. However, another application under section 47, C.P. C. was moved by the petitioners side, which was also dismissed in 1979. A revision filed against the order of this dismissal was also dismissed in 1980. Not having been satisfied by all the proceedings, the petitioners then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, which having also been dismissed by order dated 12‑12‑1980, leave to appeal through C.P. No.1541 of 1980 has been sought, from the said order of the High Court.

3. It appears that after the delivery of possession to the respondents side, the petitioners somehow or other succeeded in regaining the possession; which compelled the respondents side this time, to file a suit in that behalf in 1979. It was decreed against the petitioners side in 1981. Their appeal was dismissed in 1984 for the reason that offer having been made by the petitioners side for special oath to be taken by Muhammad Bashir, respondent, he took the oath. Their revision was also dismissed by the High Court on 1‑7‑1985. The second petition (C .P.861/85) is against the said revisional order of the High Court.

4. The learned counsel in the very outset stated that in view of the findings by the learned Courts below in the second case which culminated in the revisional order passed by the High Court on 1‑7‑1985, if the petitioners fail to achieve success therein through an order for leave to appeal, the petition in the first case would then automatically fail. He, therefore, mainly argued the point involved in the second case though he also pointed out the technical questions involved in the first case also.

5. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the offer before the learned Appellate Court made in the second case was, to the effect that the statement on oath should be made by the Guardian of Muhammad Bashir (at the time he was minor during the earlier stage of the litigation)‑‑it is admitted that at the relevant appeal stage, he had become major. However, the statement on oath was made by Muhammad Bashir himself instead of his erstwhile guardian. With the help of the learned counsel, we have examined the relevant record. His argument that on account of some misconception or otherwise the record was not correctly prepared, cannot be accepted. The case stands concluded by findings of facts. No justification having been made out for grant of leave to appeal, the same is refused in C.P. No.861 of 1985. It is thus dismissed.

6. In view of the statement of the learned counsel relating to C .P .1541180 and also for the reason that after hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any substance therein, the same is also dismissed. M.I. /A‑220/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.