1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the vendees' side against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court.
2. ' Although several questions were raised before the High Court but the learned counsel has pressed only one point--that of prior right of pre-emption of the respondents/pre-emptors. He contended that petitioners/vendees were the tenants of the suit land, therefore, the respondents had no superior right of preemption. This argument was also raised before the High Court but was repelled with the observation and finding that it was not pressed before the lower appellate Court.
3. This statement of fact in the impugned judgment is enough to dismiss this petition for leave to appeal. However, the learned Judge in the High Court dealt with this question on merits also and held that even if the question of some of the petitioners being tenants, would have been examined by the higher Courts the petitioners would still have failed, on account of their having joined in the purchase a person who, according to their own showing, was not a tenant.
4. ' After hearing the learned counsel, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Leave to appeal accordingly is refused.