SHER MUHAMMAD Versus SAMUNDAR KHAN

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑ The petitioners feel aggrieved by the order of a learned Jingle Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 6‑5‑19 15 dismissing their R. S. A. in limine. The petition arises out of pre‑emption proceeding initiated by respondents 1 to 3 and their brother respondent No. 4 who were the vendees of the suit‑land. Holding the sale to be divisible the trial Court allowed partial pre‑emption of the suit land measuring 69 kunals and 5 marlas. Feeling aggrieved, respondents 1 to 3 Filed an appeal before the District Judge whereas the petitioners and respondent No. 4 also filed cross‑objections, through their counsel Syed Afzal Ahmad Shah, Advocate.

2. The cast came up fore the District Judge on 6. 3‑1973 and it appears that after addressing, some preliminary arguments, the appellants' counsel withdrew the appeal on behalf of the petitioners. Respondent No. 4 who alone was present with his counsel also withdrew the cross objection which were accordingly filed by the District Judge. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the withdrawal of cross‑objections was confined only to those of their brother Miran, Bakhsh respondent No. 4 who alone was present in his personal capacity. In support of this position, the petitioners also filed an affidavit purporting to be sworn by their counsel Syed Afzaal Ahmad Shah. The learned Judge in the High Court sent for the petitioners Advocate and examined him in Court. He clearly stated that the withdrawal of cross‑objections was on behalf of the petitioners as wet as their brother respondent No. 4 all of whom were: represented by him. It appears that the Advocate also tendered an apology before the High Court for having taken up inconsistent position which was accepted.

3. In support of the petition for leave, leaned Counsel has tried to challenge the procedure adopted by the learned at Judge in High Court to holding a factual inquiry as to the correct position regarding withdrawal of cross‑objections which according to the 'earned counsel was unwarranted in law. The contention is patently devoid of force. The procedure adopted by the learned Judge was only too meet and proper which resolved the controversy on the solitary issue of fact involved in the matter. No exception can, therefore, he taken to the impugned order justifying this Court's interference. The petition is dismissed.

4. Petition dismissed.