' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against Sindh High Court, Larkana Circuit Court judgment, dated 28-1-2003 dismissing Civil Revision No,40 of 1998 arising out of a suit for pre-emption filed by the petitioner against the respondents.
2. Petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of the suit-land sold by respondent No,2 in favor of respondent No,1 . The right of preemption was asserted on the ground of being co-sharer in the land. Petitioner asserted the demands, pre-requisite for establishing his right to pre-emption, which were denied and disputed by the respondents in their respective written statements. Issues were framed and evidence was adduced. At the conclusion of the trial, learned Civil Judge, Shandadkot dismissed the suit on the findings that the petitioner failed to establish Talb-e-Ishhad, which is essential to the availing of said right. Petitioner's appeal before the District Court and civil revision before the High Court having been dismissed, he seeks leave to appeal against concurrent findings of fact.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. Essentially the petitioner has been non-suited on the consideration that on coming to know about the transaction of sale he was able to assert his right of pre-emption by making first demand but failed to establish second demand for want of reference to the first demand as enshrined in the principles of Mahomedan Law relating to Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad. Learned Judge in the High Court has elaborately dealt with the evidence adduced by the petitioner in support of his claim and after referring to the provisions of law relating to demands for pre-emption, affirmed the findings of the Courts below that the petitioner utterly failed to prove second demand for lack of reference to the first demand.
4. When we called upon Mr. Jatoi, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner to convince us and to show from the record whether there was any misreading or non-reading of material evidence, learned counsel took us through the evidence of petitioner Muhammad Khan and his two sons Ahmad Yar and Muhammad Ayub. We are, however, unable to discern any evidence tending to have reference in the second demand to first demand. Since the petitioner himself is silent on this point, both of his witnesses also remained quiet. There is hardly any iota of evidence to establish that while making Talb-e-Ishhad petitioner had remotely referred to the first demand.
Learned counsel has referred to a case from Sindh High Court reported as Muhammad Usman v.
Rehmatullah 1985 CLC 420 but it is of no assistance to him as essentially, the reported case deals with the categories of pre-emptors, who have preference over each other to claim the right of pre- emption under Mahomedan Law.
5. Since findings of fact recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from any inherent, legal defect or error of jurisdiction, no ground is made out for interference by this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. Resultantly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.