SHAH MUHAMMAD Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees in a pr‑emption matter. The challenge is to the determination of two questions by the learned Courts below; one relating to payment of court‑fee and the other relating to the payment of Zar‑i‑Punjam. The impugned decisions having gone against the petitioners, they have now sought leave to appeal.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pressed the question of court‑fee on account of the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan (P L D 1986 S C 289). With regard to Zar‑I- Punjab he has reiterated the same argument (of late payment), as was raised before the High Court in Civil Revision. It was repelled with reference to the justification for accepting the delayed payment. The respondents were not to be blamed, there was some error on the part of the Court functionaries. In any case, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court, leave to appeal is, accordingly, refused and the petition is dismissed.

M. B. A . /S‑150/S Leave refused.