WALIDAD Versus AMIR

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑ ‑Leave to appeal has beep sought by the vendees in a pre‑emption matter against the dismissal of their Regular Second Appeal by the. High Court.

2. Learned counsel has raised two points in support of the petition; (i) that the respondent/ pre‑emptor initially paid deficient court‑fee and the suit thus became time barred; and (ii), that the respondent's suit suffered from the bar of waiver.

3. The first question stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 which goes against the petitioners.

4. The second question stands concluded by the findings of fact in the two judgments of the appeal Courts. Reliance of the learned counsel on so‑called admission of the respondent that there were two transactions of sale and that he was a party to one of those transactions is not of much help to the petitioners.

5. After hearing the learned counsel on this point we do not find any justification for interference on this question of fact. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.

6. M.I. /W‑30/S Petition dismissed.