SAAD SAOOD JAN, J--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 26-2- 1983 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the constitutional petition of the petitioners.
2. Respondent No.1 filed a suit for pre-emption in respect of a sale of agricultural land. He claimed that he was the tenant in the land covered by the sale. The suit was decreed by the Collector. The petitioners who were the vendees preferred an appeal before the Additional Commissioner. The appeal was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner who upheld the finding of the Collector with regard to the status of respondent No.1 in the land in question. The petitioners then filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. It was dismissed on the ground that it had been preferred after the prescribed time. The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the legality of the decree passed in favour of respondent No.1. It was dismissed by a learned Single Judge. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is to be noticed that the petitioners had a remedy before the Board of Revenue. They did not avail of it within the prescribed time. This by itself was a sufficient ground for the dismissal of the constitutional petition filed by them in the High Court.
4.Learned counsel for the petitioners states that they had moved an application before the Board of Revenue for condonation of the delay but it was illegally rejected by the Board. A copy of the said application has not been placed on the record. On our inquiry learned counsel stated that the explanation offered in support of the prayer for condonation of the delay was that the petitioners' counsel before the Board had misunderstood the provisions with regard to the time prescribed for filing of a revision petition. The question whether sufficient cause for condonation of the delay had been shown was one for the Board to decide. Its decision in this regard could not ordinarily be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
5.Learned counsel then contended that respondent No.1 was not tenant and as such the revenue Courts were not competent to entertain his suit. It is difficult to accept this contention in view of the concurrent finding of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner which after further examination was confirmed by the High Court.
6.This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.