ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J: --Leave to appeal has been sought against the judgment of the High Court dated 17-4-1989.
2. The facts briefly stated are that the petitioner pre-empted sale of land measuring 175 Kanals 18 Marlas situate in Village Tohar, Tehsil and District Gujranwala, purchased by the respondent from Mst. Amatur Rauf wife 6f Muhammad Din, by a registered sale-deed dated 6-6-1969 for an ostensible pride of Rs.1,40,000. The suit was contested by the defendants. The learned trial Judge framed various issues. By means of judgment dated 5-3-1980 the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit of the petitioner on payment of Rs.1,44,837. The respondents presented an appeal which was dismissed on 1-10-1988 by the Additional District Judge, Gujranwala. The respondents then challenged the two judgments and decrees in a Revision Petition before the High Court. The High Court accepted the revision petition, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and dismissed the suit of the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there are concurrent findings of fact by the Senior Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge and in view of the settled legal position the High Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the findings of fact in the revision petition unless there is an error in the procedure provided by law. The High Court could set aside such findings of fact if the same are based on misreading of evidence and such error is manifest on record. In the written statement the respondents have taken a specific plea that the plaintiff had abandoned his claim.
Issue No.3 was framed by the trial Court in view of the objection taken by the respondents.
Muhammad Hussain, P.W.2 has stated that the plaintiff was approached by the vendor to purchase the suit property but the petitioner showed his inability as he had no money. The statement of this witness was recorded on 16-12-1972. P.W.3 Muhammad Sadiq was examined on 22-9-1973 and hr deposed that the plaintiff was present at the time of execution of sale-deed Exh. P.W.2. P.W.9 was examined on 8-4-1975 and he stated that the plaintiff participated in sale transaction. These facts have not been refuted by the petitioner who appeared as his own witness on 11-10-1975. He has not challenged the statement of these witnesses. The High Court has examined the evidence minutely and pointed at inherent defects of- the petitioner's. Case. It has been observed that the petitioner had the knowledge that the evidence had been brought on record but the petitioner in his evidence did not state that he was neither present at the time of settlement of bargain nor was he offered to purchase the land and that he did not refuse to purchase on account of non-availability of money. The High Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record. The finding is unexceptionable. There is no error of law.
The petition has no force and the same is dismissed.