Law:

Section:

(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993 (B.K.)---   ----S. 4---Pre-emption, right of ---Waiver---Proof---Vendee in his written statement had taken a specific plea that plaintiff/pre-emptor had waived his right of pre-emption because plaintiff had entered into an agreement with defendant/vendee according to which plaintiff/pre-emptor after receiving Rs.10,000 from vendee had undertaken that he would forego his right of pre emption and would refrain from pre-empting sale---Plea raised by vendee in his written statement with regard to waiver was neither controverted by plaintiff/pre-emptor nor any replication was filed by plaintiff/pre-emptor to rebut such assertion---Fact of receiving Rs.10,000 by plaintiff/pre-emptor in lieu of his undertaking to refrain from filing suit for pre-emption, otherwise had been proved by vendee by producing cogent evidence ---Plaintiff/pre-emptor in 'Jirga' held between the parties had clearly waived his right of pre-emption by accepting position that he was not prepared to purchase suit property on the amount demanded by vendor as he being a poor man, it was not within his means---By accepting amount of Rs.10,000 from vendee for an undertaking to refrain from filing pre-emption suit, waiver on part of pre-emptor/plaintiff had clearly been established---Concurrent findings of Courts below, in that respect, could not be interfered with.   Saleh Muhammad Khan v. Hassan Muhammad Khan 1981 CLC 353; PLD 1957 SC (Ind.) 346; AIR 1965 SC 1405 and Naseer Ahmad v. Arshad Ahmad PLD 1984 SC 403 ref.   (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constituion Act (VIII of 1974))---   ----S 44---Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of---Concurrent finding of fact recorded by Trial Court and First Appellate Court could not be disturbed unless a case for misreading, non-reading or gross injustice had been made out---Even if on appraisal of evidence different conclusion was arrived at by High Court or Supreme Court, same could not be made a ground for setting aside concurrent finding howsoever erroneous same might be.   Shah Alam and another v. Hav. Muhammad Nawaz Khan and 5 others PLD 1981 SC (AJ&K) 124;…