1. ' S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioner against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court D.I. Khan Bench dated 1-11-1989, arising out of a pre-emption matter, wherein Muhammad Ali Khan plaintiff/respondent brought a suit for possession through pre- emption of the suit land measuring 19 kanals 3-1/2 marlas situate at village Ameen Mughul Khel, Tehsil and District Bannu, before the Senior Civil Judge, Bannu, claiming himself to be the co-sharer and the owner of contiguous property and also got the rights of immunities an appendages regarding the discharge of water etc., whereas the defendant/petitioner has got no such rights.
2. The suit was contested by the defendant/petitioner and denied the allegations of the plaintiff/ respondent. The learned trial Judge framed contesting issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent in his favour, on payment of Rs, 1,26,390 vide his order dated 2-11-1986. Appeal of the petitioner before the Addl. District Judge, Bannu failed on 19-7-1987 and thereafter his civil revision in the High Court was also dismissed on 1-11-1989. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
3. ' The only question urged by learned Advocate-on-Record in support of this petition is that on the basis of exchange of 2 kanals and 11-1/2 marlas in the suit Khata, the petitioner improved his status before the institution of the suit and he thus being the co-sharer in the suit land, got equal rights of pre-emption with that of the respondent. In order to prove the possession of the exchange land, oral evidence was produced by the petitioner and no Khasra Girdawari of the Patwari or any other documentary evidence in support of his claim were produced by him to prove the exchange. The learned Addl. District Judge has calculated that the area after the sale left with Khan Gul petitioner for exchange, comes to an area of 10-1/2 marlas, whereas the exchange deed shows 2 kanals 11-1/2 marlas. According to the learned Advocate-on-Record the calculation so made by the Addl.
4. District Judge is not correct and is disputed. Anyhow, the exchange is not proved and all thee three Courts below have concurrently decided this fact in favour of the respondent.
5. ' Under the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition, and it is accordingly dismissed.