1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--This order shall dispose of two petitions, namely, Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.175-R/1989 and Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.176-R/1939 which arise out of the same order of the High Court.
2. Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for pre-emption against the acceptance by the High Court of respondent's civil revision.
3. As stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner two Khasras numbers were the subject-matter of sale and pre-emption; ore, 2689 and the other 2691. The trial Court decreed the petitioners suit regarding 2691 but dismissed it in respect of 2689 on the finding that the, respondent/ vendee had superior right on the ground of tenancy. There were two appeals. The Additional District Judge dismissed the respondent/vendee's appeal regarding No.2691 and allowed the petitioner's appeal regarding 2689. The respondent then filed two revisions both were allowed on the ground of misreading or non-reading of essential evidence. Particular reference was made to the Khasra Girdawari entries and the oral evidence which supported the respondent/vendee's case regarding the question of tenancy.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner iii support of these two petitions for leave to appeal filed by the pre-emptor has contended that the High Court could not have set aside the appellate judgment on question of fact, when exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. He has also contended that the Khasra Girdawari Exh.P/4 has not been correctly read and appreciated by the High Court when setting aside the findings of fact which were in favour of the petitioner. A legal point has also been raised in the petition that when a vendee puts up the, defence of a superior right which has been held to be repugnant to the injunctions of Islam in the case of Malik Said Kamal Shah PLD 1986 SC 360, he also will be subject to the condition that no decree can be passed in his favour for the first time after 31 July,1986.
5. We have read the entries relied upon by the learned counsel in the Khasra Gir0awari Exh.P/4, of course with his help. Apart from the fact that they do not support the petitioner's case regarding the period of tenancy of the respondent/vendee, the petitioner failed to produce the other relevant material, relied upon by the High Court, on the record of this petition. This is in contravention of the rules of this Court. After hearing the learned counsel on the question of the findings of fact by the High Court and the misreading and non-reading by the learned lower Courts, we do not find any justification for interference on the factual aspects of the case. Regarding the legal question raised by the learned counsel, vis-a-vis, the judgment of this Court in the case of Sardar Ali and others v.
6. Muhammad Ali and others PLD 1988 SC 287, does not support the contention. Accordingly leave to appeal is refused.