1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, J.-The petitioner seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, dated 4th of April, 1979, by which Civil Revision No, 14 of 1979 was dismissed in limine.
2. ' One Mst. Sakina sold Khasra Nos. 571, 169, 341 and 168, measuring 21 kanals and 16 marlas, situate in village Koka, Tehsil Haripur, to the respondent for a consideration of Rs, 15,000, by a registered sale deed dated 19th of March, 1975. The petitioner pre-empted the sale of these survey numbers.
3. In that suit the respondent conceded that in regard to Survey No, 341, the petitioner had a superior right. As regards Khasra No, 571, the petitioner withdrew his claim over it. The dispute was thus in respect of Khasra Nos. 169 and 168. The petitioner claimed a superior right on the ground that he was a co-owner while the respondent based his claim on his status as a tenant at will which gave to him a superior right over the petitioner pursuant to clause (3) of para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation No, 115 of 1972. The trial Court accepted the respondent's plea and decreed the suit for pre-emption in respect of survey No, 341 only. The first appeal failed and the second appeal also met the same fate.
4. In seeking leave to appeal the petitioner relied on Khasra Girdawari for Rabi 1975 in which Gui Zaman and Shakar Khan were entered as in cultivating possession. The District Judge, while holding that this document was fictitious, observed :- "...These entries of Khasra Girdawari, I am afraid, are fictitious because all of a sudden soon after the purchase of the land by the defendant-vendee his name stands deleted from the Khasra Girdawari regarding his tenancy without any dispossession. Obviously this entry in the name of Gul Zaman and then Shakar A Khan was purposely made by the village Patwari at the instance of the appellant.
5. ' There is also no ocular evidence to show as to how and under what circumstances Ali Aksar vendee-respondent was dispossessed or had abandoned his tenancy over the two disputed Khasra numbers. Strangely the said two alleged tenants of the disputed Khasra numbers were also not produced in the witness-box to stand the test of cross-examination and an adverse inference has, therefore, to be drawn against the vendee-respondent."
6. ' The High Court accepted this conclusion and we see no error in this finding which, being one of fact, cannot be assailed.
7. ' The petition fails and is hereby dismissed.