IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.-- This petition has been filed against the judgment dated 7th May 2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision filed by petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent instituted a suit for possession through pre-. Emption in respect of property details whereof have been mentioned in the plaint. Suit was contested by the petitioners. However, learned Trial Court, after hearing both the sides and having gone through the evidence, led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, dismissed the suit judgment dated 10th March, 1997 on the ground that respondents-pre-emptors have failed to prove Talabs. Learned Additional District Judge, on appeal, set aside the judgment of the Civil Court by means of judgment dated 3rd June, 2000. On appeal, the judgment of the Appellate Court has been maintained by the learned High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction vide impugned judgment dated 7th May, 2002. As such instant petition has been filed for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that Talb-e-Ishhad was not duly performed and the respondents failed to prove the notice that it was duly issued and served upon the petitioners. According to him a photostat copy of notice was brought on record to prove the Talbas but the same was not admissible in law, therefore, on objection was raised during the statement of PW-Zeenat Khatoon. In support of his contention, he was relied upon the judgment reported as Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Rafique (2001 SCM R 1651).
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have also gone through the impugned judgment as well as the case-law being relied upon by the learned counsel. It is to be noted that as far as PW-1 Zeenat Khatoon is concerned, she has tendered copy of notice which was in her possession, after sending the original to the petitioners, therefore, in our opinion, the Court was legally. Right to accept its photostat copy and on this score, no point is made out for grant of leave to appeal. The judgment being relied upon by the learned counsel is distinguishable, in view of the facts and circumstances of instant case.
5. Thus for the foregoing reasons, petition is dismissed and leave declined. .