KARAM ELAHM CHAUHAN, J.-It is not necessary to go into the lengthy details of this case and the stages through which it passed inasmuch as it will be sufficient for the purpose of the present order to mention that the petitioners want to pre-empt a part of the sale transaction in favour of certain vendees (out of total lot of vendees) by splitting up the bargain on the ground that the shares of - all and the various vendees were separately mentioned in the sale-deed, with the result that against those vendees qua whom they had a preferential right of pre-emption their suit should have been proportionately decreed. This plea was not accepted by the High Court: who on 13-6- 1979 rejected R. S. A. No. 133/79 which had been filed by the petitioners on the subject and it was held that without specification of price such a plea was of no effect. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
2. The view taken by the High Court is supported by decisions of this Court as reported in Abdullah and 3 others v. Abdul Karimothers (PLD 1968 SC 140) and Ahmad and others v. Ghularn Haider (1972 SCMR 357). In the face of the aforesaid there is no error in the order of the High Court and the petition for leave to appeal has no substance. Learned counsel in this respect wanted to rely upon Ram Nath and others v. Badri Narain and others (1 L R 19 All. 148) but the said case has duly been taken note of by this Court in the precedent earlier mentioned and needs no separate discussion. The petition is dismissed.