GHULAM NABI Versus MUHAMMAD MANSHAF

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J .‑‑The vendees' side in a pre emption matter, has sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.

2. Learned counsel half‑heartedly contended that a minor was impleaded in the plaint without appointment of a guardian‑ad‑litem. He, however, admitted that this defect was removed soon after it was discovered and the father of the minor was treated' as a guardian. That being the position, the learned counsel did not press the point any further. The other question of court‑fee, the learned counsel frankly stated, could not be pressed on account of the judgment of this Court in the case of Siddique Khan P L D 1984 S C 289 relied upon by the High Court, in the impugned judgment.

3. The case of Muhammad Ismail v. Muhammad Sarwar reported in 1980 S C M R 254 also goes against the plea‑‑(regarding failure to appoint a guardian for the suit), raised by the learned counsel. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.

4. M. I. /G‑107/S Petition dismissed.