SIDDIQ Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J ‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre‑emptor against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated the 20th of March, 1984 whereby the respondents' Regular Second Appeal was allowed.

2. The learned counsel has contended that the two Courts below had given findings of fact in favour of the petitioner that the transaction in question was sale but the High Court allowed the respondents' regular second appeal on this question of fact and held that the transaction was of exchange. This, as argued by the learned counsel, was not permissible under section 100, C.P.C. He has relied upon Fazal Rahman v. Amir Haider (1986 S C M R 1814) to support his contention.

3. We have heard the learned counsel on the question of law raised by him and after going through the impugned judgment, are satisfied that the learned Judge in the High Court was conscious of the limitations in so far as the exercise of jurisdiction as second appellate Court is concerned. Not only this, we also heard the learned counsel on merits and have come to the conclusion that the impugned judgment is unexceptionable and does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to justify interference by this Court. Leave to appeal is accordingly refused.

4. M.B.A./S‑158/S Leave refused.