1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions by vendees.
2. They are directed against the dismissal of their Civil Revisions.
3. ' Learned counsel has raised two-fold contentions; one, technical and procedural; and the other, on merits regarding bar of estoppel against the respondent/pre-emptor.
4. ' Regarding the first contention, the learned counsel stated that in reality evidence was recorded in one of these two connected matters but was, copied in the other, and further, that the judgment was written in one but was copied in the other, by filling in certain blanks.
5. Even if the first point be accepted as based on facts, the petitionersvendees in the subsequent suit should have objected to the mode of recording of evidence by the trial Court. There is no proof that he did so. With regard to the second point, the questions involved being the same, even if some of the parts of the judgment in one case are reproduced in subsequent case, we would not grant leave to appeal on this technicality either.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the present case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad (PLD 1984 SC 403) that the suits should have been dismissed on the ground of estoppel. Prima facie, there is some strength in this argument of the learned counsel. However, we on careful scrutiny of the material before us and the learned Courts below which gave concurrent findings against the petitioners, are satisfied that the facts in this matter are distinguishable. The question of estoppel also does not, therefore, need re-examination.
7. Leave to appeal in both the petitions, is thus refused.