SUGHRAN BIBI Versus TAJA

ORDER

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J .‑‑These are two petitions for special leave to appeal. They are both barred by time. For the reasons stated by the learned counsel, we condone the delay.

2. The petitions arise out of two suits for pre‑emption which were, after remand, decreed by the trial Court and the petitioners' appeal before the Additional District Judge remained un-successful. They filed a revision petition in the High Court which was dismissed in default. The application for restoration met the same fate. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.

3. Apart from the consideration that the petitioners were unable to show sufficient cause for the restoration of their revision petition, they also had no case on merit. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were not given compensations for the improvements the had effected on the land in dispute. The trial Court and the Additional District Judge held that they had' not made any improvements. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy u that the said concurrent finding suffered from any infirmity. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.

M.I. /S‑169/S Petitions dismissed.