NAWAB DIN Versus MUHAMMAD DIN

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑ Vendees in these petitions in pre‑emption matter, have called in question order of the High Court dated 28‑10‑1987 whereby their Regular Second Appeal was disposed of in terms of an agreement between the parties. Thus, in a way petitioners want to challenge a consent order before us.

2. Learned counsel stated that only Asghar Ali petitioner was present and his statement before the High Court should not have been used against the interest of the other petitioners.

3. This was not the position. It appears from the impugned order that the statement made before the High Court was jointly made by Asghar Ali and both the learned counsel for the parties. It is not the case of the petitioner that the learned counsel who appeared on their side had no authority to act as he did.

4. After hearing the learned counsel in support of these petitions, we find no substance in them. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused and the petitions are dismissed.

5. M.I. /N‑79/S Petition dismissed.