1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C.J.-- In this petition the question for consideration was as to whether the transaction was a sale or an exchange, and the Courts below held that it was an exchange.
2. Accordingly, the suit for pre-emption failed. It may be added that the petitioner examined himself and one other witness but as none of them was present at the time of the completion of the transaction, the trial Court disbelieved them.
3. In the absesnce of extrinsic evidence to establish the contention of the petitioner, the Courts below relied on the exchange deed, which, according to them, could not be construed as a sale merely on the basis of price which the land could fetch or the improbability of exchange of 1 Kanal in lieu of 3 Kanals.
4. ' The conclusion of the Courts below is unexceptionable and, accordingly, the petition is dismissed.