SHFI-UR-REHMAN, J.-The petitioner seeking leave to appeal has been unsuccessful as a defendant in protecting the purchase of agricultural land against the pre-emptive claim of the respondent. He purchased 1071/1512 share of 5 kanals 5 marlas of agricultural land in Banda Ali Khan, Tehsil and District Abbottabad for Rs, 11,000. Mutation was entered on 15-2-1975 and sanctioned on 10-5-1975. The respondent instituted a suit on 8-5-1976. The petitioner contested it on various grounds one of them being of limitation claiming that he had obtained possession under the sale even before the mutation was entered. He also denied the superior right of pre- emption of the plaintiff.
2. The trial Court upheld the bar of limitation as was advanced by the petitioner but the District Judge reversed this finding and also found the claim of the respondent to be superior and decreed the suit. The High Court dismissed the revision petition. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. As regards the limitation, reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is on the entries of the Khasra Girdawari, copy of which has not been placed on record but which shows that on 29-4-75 the petitioner came to be recorded in possession as a tenant-at-will under the sale. As regards the superior right of pre-emption, it is stated that though the Patwari appear--ing as plaintiff's witness bad so stated not by his cross-examination but from other material he could show that the plaintiff had not proved what he was required to prove for establishing his superior right of pre-emption.
4. The learned Judge. In the High Court, while dealing with the question of limitation took a number of factors into consideration for sustaining the finding of the District Judge, and held as follows "The case of the 'petitioner had all along been that he had taken actual physical possession of the land in suit on 15th of February, 1975 when the statement of the vendors was recorded on the mutation and the sale was completed. The petitioner in his statement recorded by the trial Judge on, 15th of May 1977, however, came forward with the plea that he was in possession of the suit land since about three years. This period was given as 3J years by Gul Zaman in his statement recorded the same day. It will thus be seen that the petitioner claimed to have obtained possession on or about 17th May 1974."
Another ground which was taken into consideration was that it was established from the revenue record that Feroze was the tenant-at-will of the land and there was no evidence whatsoever to show that "the tenant-at-will Feroze at any time before the attestation of the sale mutation parted with the possession of any area out of this Khasra number and delivered its possession to the petitioner". Both these grounds are such that they could be made the very basis for tile decision and have not been successfully displaced by the petitioner at any stage whatsoever.
5. As regards the superior right of pre-emption, it was clear from the statement of the Patwari and the Shajra of the land that the plaintiff ha established his superior right. It was for the petitioner to have proved that the respondent's statement was in any manner deficient or unreliable. Having not done that in the trial Court, the deficiency cannot be made up b objecting to its sufficiency or adequacy on a theoretical plans.
6. We find no merit in the petition, which is dismissed.