MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--A vendee has sought leave to appeal from judgment dated 16-6- 1984 of the Lahore High Court; whereby his second appeal arising out of a pre-emption case was dismissed.
2. The respondent's suit for pre-emption was dismissed on the ground that a sale through decree for specific performance was not pre-emptiable See Muhammad Wazir v. Chaudhri Jahangir Mal' and others (P.L.D. 1949 Lahore 1). The issue regarding limitation was however decided in pre- emptor's favour. During first appeal the petitioner who was to appear as respondent did not attend the Court at the time of hearing nor was his counsel present. The appeal was heard ex parse and decided against the petitioner even on the point of pre-emptability of the sale in question (See Nur Ahmad and others v. B. Muhammad Ibrahim and another PLD 1953 Lah. 470 (F.B) and the suit was decreed: The petitioner challenged the first appellate 'ex parte judgment in the High Court. Two points of limitation and pre-emptibility of the sale are discussed in the High Court judgment. It is also mentioned in the judgment that the first appellate court was not at fault in proceeding against the petitioner ex parte; as, the said court waited enough for some one to appear on behalf of the petitioner and then proceeded ex parte.
3. Leave to appeal has not been sought from High Court judgment which has affirmed the first appellate judgment. Learned counsel in the very beginning stated that he would not urge any of the points noticed and decided by the High Court. He wanted instead to argue the petition on absolutely new points which are of law hence can be raised according to him.
4. After hearing the learned counsel on the first point of technical nature as to whether on the facts of this case the first appellate Court should have proceeded ex parte, we decided not to permit the new pointsto be urged now, Substantial justice was done by the 1st appellate court. By permitting new points, in the circumstances of the case, we would be deprived of the views of the learned lower courts on the fresh points. Thus it is not a fit case for leave to appeal which is hereby refused.