This revision petition is directed against the judgment and the decree of the District Judge 'Mardan dated 4-10-1984 whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner Muhammad Sherin Sahibzada and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Judge, Mardan, dated 181-1-1982.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Muhammad Sherin Sahibzada, petitioner herein, purchased landed property measuring 56 Kanals 19 Marlas from Mst. Ghafooria and others through registered sale---deed dated 9-12-1982 for an ostensible amount of Rs. 2,85,000. This transaction was pre-empted by Lal Badshah and Khan Badshah on the allegations that in fact the suit land was sold for a sum of Rs. 40,000 but in order to defect the superior pre-emptive rights of the plaintiffs an exorbitant amount was entered into the registered deed. The plaintiffs also alleged that they are the co-sharers and contiguous owners of the suit land and also the participators in the immunities and appendages of the suit land whereas the vendee-defendants do not possess such qualifications. The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 only and on the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge framed as many as 11 issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, for and against their contentions, decided issue No. 9 in favour of the plaintiff pre-emptors by holding them to have superior right of pre-emption. Issue No. 1 was also decided in favour of the plaintiffs while issue Nos. 2 to 8 were decided against the defendants Under issues Nos 10 and 11 it was hold that ' Rs. 2,85;000 is the market value of the suit land and has been fixed in good faith and paid by the vendee to the vendors. Consequently, a decree for possession through pre-emption was passed in favour of the plaintiff pre-emptor on payment of RS. 2,85,000 by the learned trial Judge vide judgment and decree dated 18-I 1-1982. Aggrieved of the impugned judgment and decree the vendee-- defendant preferred an appeal (247/13 of 1982) in the Court of District Judge, Mardan. The plaintiff pre-emptors being dissatisfied with the findings of the trial Judge on issues Nos. 10 and 11 also filed an appeal (4/13 of 1983) before the same Court. The learned District Judge.
However, vide judgment dated 4-10-1984 dismissed both the appeals up--holding the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge. Hence the present revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the record. It may be mentioned at the very outset that this revision-petition was admitted by this Court only on the point of expenses on registration and stamp duty. No other point was taken into con-- sideration at the time of admitting this revision petition for full hearing.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argu--ments raised the point of sinker and argued that he had also taken this point before the learned District Judge but he has failed to give any finding thereon. As stated earlier the admitting note of this revision petition by this Court clearly shows that this petition was admitted only to consider the question of expenses of registration and stamp duty only. Therefore, this point cannot be agitated during the arguments. A look at the issues framed in the case also show that no such issue about sinker was framed by the learned trial Court and pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, in view of an authority reported in Khudadad and others v. Muhammad Habibullah (1980 SCMR 727) this cannot be allowed to be agitated for the first time in this revision-petition. The observations of their Lord--ships in the cited authority are as follows :- "Article 185(3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Issues not pressed/abandoned at trial-Not allowed to be agitated before High Court in Revision against judgment of trial Court -Plea raised in Supreme Court that counsel who made this contention was never permitted to press material issues and that it being a pure question of law, be permitted to be re-agitated, disallowed-Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed."
4-A. Coming to the point of expenses incurred on registration and stamp duty a reference to the statement of Jehanzeb, Special Attorney of defendants 2 to 5, would make it clear that the stamps were purchased through him. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove the purchase of stamps by him because Jehanzeb is the Special Attorney of the defendants,/ vendors and not acting on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, I hold that g the petitioner cannot claim the expenses incurred by him on the registration and for the purchase of stamp duty. In an authority reported in Hussain v.
Allah Bakhsh (1984 SCMR 1118) their Lordships have observed as under :- "Section 100-Second appeal-Appeal a continuation of proceedings initiated by suit-Appellant could not in memorandum of appeal raise a new case requiring fresh investigation or raise an objection which if had been raised earlier could have been met Objection raised being not a pure question of law but factual element being involved therein-Appellant was not entitled to raise such objection at appellate stage-Appellate Court, therefore, need not go into such question."
I am, therefore, of the view that as the objection raised being not a pure question of law but factual element being involved in the case, the petitioner is not entitled to raise such an objection at the stage of revision. This Court would, therefore, need not go into such question.
5. Coming to the question of superior, pre-emption rights, I am of the view, that no illegality was committed by the learned lower Court in holding the plaintiff-pre-emptors to have superior right of pre-emption which finding is based on the statement-of the Patwari. In support of this view the authority reported in Mst. Gul Adam v. M. Talib Jan (PLD 1983 Pesh. 127) can he cited with advantage wherein it has been held as under :- "Section 12-Pre-emption Preferential right of-Statement of Patwari proving that appellant-co- sharer in estate and respondent not enjoy--ing any such right-Plaintiff, held, has preferential right of pre--emption."
Therefore, I would hold that the learned trial Judge has rightly held the plaintiff-pre-emptors to have superior pre-emptive rights against the defendant-petitioner.
6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the judgments of the lower forums are quite legal ; no illegality or wrong exercise was committed by them ; the petitioner is not entitled to make a new case through additional evidence and that no such documents in support of the contention were filed either in the lower Court or at the appellate stage.
7. As such, the concurrent findings of both the Courts below are not open to any exception with the result that this revision petition must fail and I hereby dismiss it with no order as to costs.