AMANAT ALI Versus MUHAMMAD ALI

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ ‑These petitions by vendees in pre‑emption matters are directed against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeals by the High Court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners having established the bar of estoppel against the respondent. pre‑emptor the High Court should have dismissed the suits. Although, technically speaking, the petitioners have failed throughout in the Courts below on the question of estoppel the learned counsel has rightly contended that the decision on merits in this behalf was rendered only by the trial Court. The District Court did not examine the question because as stated in the First Appellate Court's judgment the learned counsel did not raise the point and the second appellate judgment having noticed this observation in the first appellate judgment did not examine the point either in second appeal.

3. It is specifically noted in the judgment of the District Judge that the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners did not raise the point regarding the issue involved on estoppel. He had no doubt raised the other points. This being a matter of record and statement of facts what happened in the Court being a part of the judgment of the Court, cannot be brushed aside lightly. The argument of the learned counsel that in a similar third case no such failure on the part of the petitioners' counsel is discoverable is also of no help to the petitioners because it would depend upon the judgment and the attitude of the counsel concerned‑‑whether or not to press a point in one or the other case.

4. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal on the point raised by the learned counsel. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

5. M.B.A./A‑242/S Petitions dismissed.