Law:

Section:

(a) Supreme Court Rules, 1980-- ----O. XII, R.2 & O. XIII, R.1---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Appeal to Supreme Court---Petition for leave to appeal--�Limitation---Period of limitation for filing a direct appeal provided under O.XII, R.2, Supreme Court Rules, 1980, is 30 days, whereas for a petition for leave to appeal under O.XIII, R.1 of the said Rules is 60 days---If, a party, under special circumstances, loses his right to file a direct appeal because of limitation, he may invoke Art. 185(3) of 'the Constitution for a petition for leave to appeal---Such leave may either be granted or declined by the Supreme Court---Where the confusion had arisen on account of valuation of the suit and the petitioner was under the impression that a petition for leave to appeal was to be filed for which the limitation was 60 days but he was told by the Supreme Court Office that the case of the petitioner was the one of regular appeal for which the limitation was 30 days, Supreme Court converted the appeal into a petition for leave to appeal with strict reference to the confusion that had arisen from the valuation of the suit. Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Hussain Shah 1990, SCMR 1621; Chairman, N.-W.F.P. Forest Development Corporation v. Khurshid Anwar Khan 1992 SCMR 1202 and Sardar Abdur Rauf Khan .v. Land Acquisition Collector, Abbottabad 1991 SCMR 2164 ref. (b) North-West Frontier Province Pre-emption Act (X of 1987)----- ----S.13---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Performance of Talb-i�-Muwathibat by the pre-emptor---Concurrent findings of fact by two Courts --�Interference by High Court in revision under S.115, C.P.C.---Scope--�Principles. The performance of Talb-i-Muwathibat is a pure question of fact which was alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff/pre-emptor had also examined evidence in this behalf which was duly appreciated by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, both of whom had non-suited the pre-emptor holding the view that the required question of fact was not proved. The two Courts had appreciated the evidence minutely, had discussed the same in detail and thereafter had arrived at concurrent conclusion. As it was a…