MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The petitioner , through the instant petition for leave to appeal, has questioned the impugned order dated 27th April, 2015 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench whereby concurrent findings regarding dismissal of his suit for pre-emption were upheld and the civil revision, filed by him, was dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner was heard and record of the case was perused.
Perusal of the record reveals that sale of landed property in question was effecte d on the basis of a Civil Court decree for specific performance which was pre-empted by two rival preemptors. The mutation of sale in this regard was attested on 14th February 1990. This was the interregnum period i.e. from 01.08.1986, to 28.03.1990 when no law of pre-emption was there and all such cases pending/instituted were to be decided in accordance with General Islamic Law of Pre-emption and on promulgation of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1991 (the 'Act of 1991' ) legal protection was given to such cases under section 35 of the Act of 1991. Be that as it may, there are concurrent findings of facts against the petitioner . He remained a party to the suit for specific performance and was fully aware of the sale transaction in favour of Respondent No. 1. The story narrated in the plaint regarding his knowledge is nothing but a fictitious one for the purpose of justifying his story of Talabs. Besides, he alleged Talb-i-Ishhad by approaching the Respondent No.1 along with witness on 4th March 1990 but that has not been established in accordance with law and in a similar attempt to prove Talb-i-Ishhad he allegedly sent a notice on 16th June, 1990 after about 3-1/2 months but that too has not been established according to law. Although some relaxations under sections 13 and 30 of the Act of 1991 were provided to such pre-emptors vide subsection (2) of section 35 of the Act of 1991 but there was no such relaxation in the provisions of subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1991, when seen in the light of provisions of section 6(2) he has not been able to make out a case as per requirements of law.
3. In view of what has been discussed above, we find no substance in this petition which could persuade us to interfere with the findings rendered by the fora below . This Petition, being meritless, is dismissed as such and leave refused.