' SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 13-7-1998, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.2106 of 1997.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Muhammad Ehasan petitioner filed a suit for pre-emption assailing the sale of 5 Kanals and 15 Marlas purchased by Amanatullah respondent through Mutation No.13117 dated 14-6-1993. The suit was resisted by the respondent taking an objection in the written statement that the petitioner had not made the valid Talb according ,to law. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the sale transaction through Rab Nawaz P.W.2 and Fateh Khan P.W.3, while he was in "Khacha". In the cross-examination he admitted that he came to know of the fact of sale when he was sitting in a Hotel of Khaliq Dad. Both of the above-named witnesses also stated that the petitioner came to know of the impugned transaction while sitting in the hotel of Khaliq Dad.
3. The learned Civil Judge after hearing the parties and framing the necessary issues dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29-9-1996. The appeal filed by him was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mianwali, vide judgment dated 7-11-1997.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.2106 of 1997 in the Lahore High Court, which, too, was dismissed vide impugned judgment. Operative part of the judgment runs as under: "I myself perused the record, judgments of both the Courts below and find unsatisfactory evidence on the first Talb i.e. Talb-iMuwathibat. I do not find any material irregularity or error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts below in giving concurrent findings on issue No.3. Consequently, this revision petition is without any force and is dismissed. No order as to costs."
' Hence, this petition.
5. It is contended that evidence about "Talab-e-Mawathibat" has been grossly misappreciated.
6. The learned Court below had held that there were serious contradictions about the knowledge of the sale in question and the making of "Talab". There is serious inconsistency between the statements of the witnesses about the time and place of making the "Talab". The conclusions A drawn by the Courts below are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not call for any interference by this Court. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed being without any substance.