PATHANA Versus ABDUL AZIZ

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor. He succeeded in obtaining a pre‑emption decree before the trial Court. Appeal of ‑the respondents/vendees was, however, accepted. The petitioner's civil revision having been dismissed, he has now sought leave to appeal.

2. One of the questions involved was of deficient court‑fee which, of course, now stands resolved in petitioner's favour by the Judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan PLD 1984 SC 289. The decisions by the two learned Courts below on the other questions involved: namely, the right of pre‑emption, and partial pre‑emption are against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel, when questioned as to whether there is any point of law or interpretation of law or the application of any principle of law, repeated again and again that the decisions by the learned Courts below are not in accordance with the evidence on record. After hearing him, we are satisfied that none of the questions raised by the learned counsel is such so as to justify the interference by this Court in the findings of fact reached by the learned Courts below. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused and the petition is dismissed.

M.B.A./P‑46/S Leave refused.