1. ' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- These petitions are directed against the dismissal of petitioners' Criminal Review Petitions Nos, 22/81 and 54/81, by an order dated 2-7-1983. This order reads as follows:- "Rule 6 of Order XVI of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 has not been complied with as the learned counsel who argued the case is not present in the Court. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed."
2. Unfortunately, even in the present petitions the counsel who argued the case is not present in the Court. We are, therefore, constrained to dismiss the same for non-compliance with the relevant rules.
2. Petitions dismissed.
3. 1984 SCMR .1506 Present: Shafiur Rahman and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ NOOR HUSSAIN and 5 others--Petitioners versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 2 others--Respondents Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,100/R of 1984, decided on 3rd April, 1984.
4. (On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 21-3-1984 Civil Revision 399/D of 1984).
5. Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ---Art.185(3)--Suit for pre-emption--Trial court decreeing suit of respondents and same upheld by District Judge in appeal and High Court in revision--Contentions raised against impugned judgment found to be without any merit--Leave to appeal refused. --[Pre-emption]. [p. 1507] A et seq Raja Muhammad Anwar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on- Record for Petitioners.
6. Nemo for Respondents.
7. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1984.
8. ' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- The petitioners purchased 258 Kanals and 7 Marlas of land from Jamil Hussain s/o Tafazzal Hussain and Afzaal Hussain son of Tajammal Hussain for consideration of Rs,26,000. The respondents filed a suit for possession by way of preemption against the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge which was decreed vide judgment dated 26-4-1980. Against this judgment an appeal was filed in this Court but on an objection of the respondents that the appeal was maintainable before the District Judge the same was returned to the petitioner who, accordingly, filed the same in the Court of the learned District Judge, Gujranwala but the same was dismissed per judgment and decree 6-3-1984. Thereafter the petitioners filed a Civil Revision No,399/D/84 which came up for hearing before a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court who vide the impugned order, dismissed the revision. By this petition the petitioners now seek leave to appeal against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court on the ground that the learned District Judge while hearing appeal, gave no decision on all the issues relevant to the case which amounts to refusal of exercise of jurisdiction that the evidence of Manzoor Hussain petitioner on issues Nos, 1 and 2, without any rebuttal, was to be accepted by the Courts below, and the learned High Court Judge failed to consider this aspect of the case. It was further contended that the waiver on the part of the pre-emptor was proved.
2. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that concluding lines of paragraph (12) of judgment dated 6-3-1984 passed by the learned District Judge, Gujranwala indicate that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners did not press the remaining issues and it was observed by the learned District Judge that it amounted to abandonment of those pleas on the part of the petitioners. As regards the question of court-fee and the superior right of pre-emption it was observed by the learned Judge that it was in compliance with the order of the trial Court and the plaintiffs/ respondents could not be held to be contumacious. They have already proved their superior right of pre-emption being owners in the estate; Jamabandis of 1969-70 were the latest and the objection that Jamabandis of 1973-74 had not been placed on record is of no avail as those had not been completed at the time of the institution of the suit. Thus we find no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.