RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This order will dispose of two petitions, namely, C.P.LA. Nos.71-R of 1989 and 72-R of 1989 filed by Lal Khan petitioner, seeking leave to appeal against two judgments of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Circuit, dated 9-10-1988, passed in two separate revision petitions.
2. Lal Khan petitioner filed a suit against Mst. Zarina Jan, respondent No.1, to pre-empt the sale made by one Hazratullah in favour of the said lady vendee .... In respect of Khasra No.37 only, on the ground that he had no superior right over the other Khasra numbers sold in her favour.
Simultaneously, Khani f,aman respondent No.2 filed a suit against Mst. Zarina Jan, respondent No.1, to pre-empt the same sale in respect of the entire area sold by Hazratullah in favour of the said respondent. Both the suits were consolidated. The trial Court held that both Lal Khan petitioner, and Khani Zaman respondent No.2, were contiguous owners and the latter was also a co-sharer of Khasra No.37 and he, therefore, had a superior right, and none of the pre-emptors had any superior right against the vendee qua the other Khasra numbers sold. He, therefore, decreed the suit in favour of Khani Zaman respondent No.2 in respect of Khasra No.37 only, against payment of Rs.2,424 as pre-emption money. Lal Khan'a suit was dismissed. The two appeals and the two revisions of Lal Khan, petitioner, were dismissed by the District Judge, Abbottabad, and the Peshawar High Court, respectively.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that Khani Zaman respondent No.2 had himself made admission about the possession of the land having passed to Mst. Zarina Jan, respondent No.1 at the time of "" and therefore possession having passed to her on 21-6-1978, his suit for pre-emption instituted on 24-6-1979 was time-barred. It is further submitted that the principles on which the said admission has been rejected are erroneous and illegal.
4. All the three Courts have given concurrent findings to the effect that possession of the disputed land did not pass to Mst. Zarina Jan, respondent No.1, at the time of "" and that limitation therefore ran from the date when the sale mutation was attested i.e. On 18-7-1978, in which case Khani Zaman's suit was within time.
5. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the record, we do not consider these two cases to be fit cases for interference, specially considering that concurrent findings of fact have been recorded in these matters by the three Courts below. There being no merit in these petitions, the same arc dismissed.