' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 12-5-2003 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the civil revisions and maintained the earlier determination of the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar, decreeing the suits for pre-emption through possession filed by the respondent.
2 .Facts briefly are that the respondent-plaintiff filed suit for pre-emption through possession of land measuring 130 Kanals on 28-9-1993, 5-7-1994 and 31-7-1994 respectively. The petitioners- defendants controverted the stance whereupon out of contradictory pleadings, issues were framed and the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Mankera, vide hisjudgment, dated 3-1-1996 dismissed the suits. The respondent preferred appeals which were accepted by the learned First Appellate Court vide judgment, dated 20-6-2001, decreeing the suits filed by the respondent-plaintiff. The petitioners filed revision petitions which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 12-5-2003. Hence, these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with these petitions. We have noticed that a question of fact regarding making of Talab has been successfully brought on record by the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar as well as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, both of them have given cogent reasons in returning this verdict.
4. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Talb-i-Ishhad was not substantiated, is devoid of any force. The registered letter could not be served as it has come on record that the petitioners-defendants refused to receive the same. Even otherwise, it is reflected from the documents that both the parties are residents of the same village and they know each other. The minor discrepancy of time as agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners would not come into the way of the pre-emptor. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any legal infirmity, misreading or non-reading in the impugned judgment warranting interference.
5. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petitions being devoid of any force are hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal is declined.