1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a vendee in these two pre- emption matters; against the impugned judgments of the High Court refusing to exercise its revisional jurisdiction.
2. ' The controversy raised in this Court is; whether, in matter of court-fee plaintiffs/pre-emptors case was covered by rule laid down by thi, Court in `Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another' PLD 1984 SC 289.
3. After some arguments the learned counsel conceded that the present matter is covered by the said judgment; but, vehemently argued that question of "contumacy" would need examination by this Court. He has, in this behalf, relied upon leave granting -order 'Muhammad Iqbal and others v.
4. Abdul Hamid 1986 SCM R 333.
5. ' Firstly, in Iqbal's case, the judgment in the case of Siddique Khan was not brought to the notice of the Court. Secondly, in any case on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we have found that the present case does not fall within the definition of "contumacy" as laid down in the case of Siddique Khan. Thus no justification having been made out for interference, leave to appeal is refused in these petitions. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.