LAL KHATOON Versus RAHIM BAKHSH

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee in a pre‑emption matter against. the dismissal of her Civil Revision by the High Court.

2. The learned counsel has tried to raise the question of limitation by asserting that the physical possession under the sale having passed prior to the formal sale, the period of limitation should have been reckoned from the date of possession. When questioned whether this plea was raised before the High Court, the learned counsel frankly stated that it is not mentioned in the High Court's Judgment though the learned counsel, who ‑appeared in the High Court, can make a statement in this behalf. We declined to entertain such statement at this belated stage. If at all, it could have been filed with the petition for leave to appeal which was instituted in 1983.

3. The learned counsel then contended that even if it was not taken up in the High Court. the question of limitation goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the point should be entertained now by the Supreme Court. If it would have been the question of limitation applicable to any petition or appeal filed in this Court, the argument of the learned counsel might have some force, but if it related to the trial Court then unless it is taken up and pressed before the intervening higher Courts, this Court would not entertain it. Se Ghulam Muhammad and others v. Malik Abdul Qadir Khan and others P L D. 1983 S C 68 and Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Shah Muhammad and others 1985 S C M R 799. The argument of the learned counsel thus fails. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused.

M.B.A./L‑11/S Petition dismissed.