1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-The order dated 5th November, 1977 dismissing a petition for special leave to appeal is sought to be reviewed through this review petition.
2. ' The petitioners filed a suit for pre-emption on the assertion that the transaction in question was not a gift (as shown by the concerned parties), but it was a sale. The trial and first appellate Courts gave findings of fact in their favour. In 2nd appeal it was held by the Lahore High Court that the findings of fact by the Lower Courts were based on conjectures and surmises and were not based on any reliable evidence. As noted in the order under review, the learned counsel then appearing in this Court read the 'entire record'. The Court after reading the relevant statements observed : "We are fully satisfied that the transaction in dispute was a gift." It was also observed that "the High Court has considered all the evidence on record..
3. Learned counsel relying on Mir Abdullah v. Muhammad Ali and others (1) contends that sections 100 and 101, C. P. C. Did not permit the reopening of decision on questions of fact in 2nd appeal. This very argument was earlier advanced and considered. The case cited now was also noticed.'
4. Rehearing, particularly in the circumstances like the present, cannot be permitted under the cover of a petition for review. It is accordingly dismissed.
(1) 1977 SCM R 280 revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.