' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These two petitions are directed against the same judgment of the Lahore High Court, therefore, they are being disposed of together.
2. The petitioners/vendees/defendants in a pre-emption suit objected to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. It was overrulled by the trial Court. Their civil revision challenging the order of the trial Court was dismissed. They accepted the revisional order and did not challenge it any further. The trial Court decided the pre-emption suit on merits and passed a decree in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. The decree was then challenged by the petitioners in First Appeal before the District Court, but without any success. They then challenged the decree before the High Court in Regular Second Appeals, which having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. The point of jurisdiction raised before the trial Court but given up after the revisional order passed against the petitioners in the first round, was reagitated before the High Court. The learned counsel has reiterated the same point before us. Apart from the fact that there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel, we have noticed that the petitioners, having accepted the revisional order in the earlier round of litigation, no useful purpose would be served in granting leave to appeal now on the same point at the asking of the petitioners. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. 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.