' Ajmal Mian, J.-- This petition is directed against the orders dated 18th January, 1975, 13th February, 1975 and 23rd July, 1975, passed by respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 respectively.
' The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the present petitioner under registered sale-deed dated 30th January,1973 purchased agricultural land bearing survey Nos.
594, 595, 598-A, 598-B and 599, situated in Deh Khan Chandio, Taluka Dadu, all measuring 7.2 acres from one Mst. Alimunnisa. It seems that respondent No, 1 filed an application before respondent No, 2 claiming inter alia the right of pre-emption. The above application was allowed by respondent No, 2 by his order dated 18th January, 1975. It further seems that petitioner filed appeal (Appeal No, 5/1975) which was allowed partly and the respondent No, 1 was allowed only survey No,595 on the basis of his right of preemption. The other survey numbers were excluded. The respondent being aggrieved by the above order filed revision, which was allowed to the extent that respondent No, 1 was allowed 3 survey numbers, namely, 595, 598-A and 599. The remaining two survey numbers were allowed to be retained by the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present writ petition.
2. In support of the above petition Mr. G. M. Qureshi learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner had purchased the suit land through a registered sale-deed on 30th January, 1973, and as respondent No, 1 had filed application on 23rd November, 1974 for claiming his right of pre-emption, the same was time-barred as it was not filed within one year period as provided for in Sind Land Commission (Pre-emption) Rules, 1974 read with Article 10 of Limitation Act. Respondent No, 1 is present in person and has filed a statement that he is not in a position to engage any Advocate.
3. We have noticed from the impugned orders that the question of limitation was not raised by the petitioner before any of the 3 respondents, who have passed the impugned orders. The question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and, therefore, we are not inclined to allow the petitioner to raise the above question of limitation in a constitutional writ petition first time. On merits Mr. G. M. Qureshi, Advocate was unable to point out any illegality in the impugned orders.
' We therefore, dismiss the above petition with no order as to costs.