' MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.---Leave to appeal is sought by the petitioner against judgment dated 12-1-1995 of the Lahore High Court whereby Civil Revision No,3 of 1995 filed by him was dismissed.
2. On 8-1-1992, Muhammad Mushtaq, respondent, instituted suit against the petitioner pre-empting the sale of the suit land dated 15-9-1991 in the Civil Court at Chakwal. He claimed superior right of pre-emption being co-owner and having his land situated contiguous to the land in dispute. In the plaint, it was averred that he gained knowledge about the sale on 1-1-1992 and that he despatched notice to the petitioner on 6-1-1992. The suit was contested by the petitioner but the trial Court decreed the suit against the petitioner and the decree of the trial Court was maintained in appeal before the District Judge, Chakwal as also in revision before the High Court.
3. This petition is admittedly barred by 27 days. The petitioner seeks condonation of delay on the ground of illness. He has appended a medical certificate about the illness of his attorney explaining the delay in filing this petition.
4. We have heard Mr. Gul Zarin Kiyani, Advocate, in support of the application for condonation of delay as also the main petition seeking leave to appeal.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the pre-emptor in his cross-examination admitted his presence on the date of registration of the sale-deed dated 15-9-1991 while deposing on payment of registration incidental charges. The notice Exh.P.2 was despatched on 6-1-1992. ' The averment made in the plaint that he learnt about the sale on 1-1-1992 was belied on his own statement as he had the knowledge about the sale on the date of registration of the sale- deed. It was contended that both the Talabs namely Talab-i-Muwathibat and Talab-i-Ishhad were delayed in violation of the statutory requirement of section 13 of Punjab Pre-emption Act IX of 1991.
In support of his submission he relied on Zafar Ali v. Zainul Abidin and another 1992 SCM R 1886 (1889-90).
6. Subject to limitation, leave to appeal is granted to consider the above-noted contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner.