1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the defendants/vendees in a suit for pre-emption against the acceptance by the High Court of the respondent/pre-emptor's civil revision.
2. The petitioners/vendees have lost the case on account of the application of the rule of sinker. As stated by the learned counsel although Sajawal Khan petitioner/vendee could successfully compete with respondent/pre-emptor as he had also the right of pre-emption the other two vendees/petitioners, namely, Mansabdar Khan and Fazal Karim could not so compete. Accordingly the rule of sinker having also been applied against Sajawal Khan, the respondent's civil revision was allowed by the High Court.
3. Learned counsel has contended that as the rule of sinker does not apply to the Province of Punjab, therefore, the judgment of the High Court merited to be set aside. He also relied on some leave grant orders by this Court. He, however, was not aware that this question has since been decided and two recent judgments are against the proposition of law advanced by the learned counsel.
4. They are: Maula Bakhsh v. Muhammad Sharif PLD 1989 SC 278 and Muhammad Ismail and others v.
5. Karamat Ali PLD 1989 SC 474. This contention, therefore, has no force.
6. Learned counsel then contended that the point of sinker was not pleaded in the plaint by the respondent. When told that the claim in the plaint in paragraphs 2 and 4 thereof is comprehensive enough that all legal questions regarding rights of the respective parties would be deemed to have been included therein he did not press the point. At the end learned counsel contended that the civil revision filed by the respondent/pre-emptor was barred by time. The learned Judge in the High Court adequately dealt with this question and having relied on a judgment of this Court in Manager, Jammu and Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar PLD 1975 S -C 678, also took note of the beneficial provisions contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act and accordingly repelled the plea of bar of limitation and even of laches raised from the petitioners/defendants' side.
7. After hearing the learned counsel at some length we do not find any force in this petition. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.