1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side in a pre- emption matter against the dismissal of Regular Second Appeal by the High Court.
2. ' Their learned counsel has pressed two points; (i) bar of partial preemption against the respondents and (ii) that respondents were not owners in the village and, therefore, they have no suprerior right of pre-emption.
3. Regarding the first point, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel is that although 1/6th share in an irrigation well is also the subject-matter of transaction of sale, no mention thereof was specifically made in the plaint. Such an unintentional omission, it has already been held by this Court, does not amount to partial pre-emption--See Naeeam-ur-Rehman v. Muhammad Anwar (1986 SCM R 1488).
4. With regard to the second point, it would suffice to observe that it was not, as admitted by the learned counsel, urged before the trial Court. Be that as it may, it being a question of fact, no justification has been made out for interference by this Court. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.