2002 PLP 37 (SCMR)

‑‑‑‑Ss.4 & 21‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 185(3)‑‑‑Superior right of pre‑emption ‑‑‑Plea of being a collateral‑‑‑Pedigree‑table‑‑‑Concurrent findings of the Courts below ‑‑‑Vendees failed to prove that they were related to vendor in nearer degree than the pre‑emptors ‑‑‑Pre‑emptors and father of the vendor, according to the pedigree‑table were related to each other through common ancestor‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Findings of the Court below were correct as mention of the fathers of the pre‑emptors had been specifically made in the pedigree‑table‑‑‑Findings of facts recorded by all the Courts below against the vendees did not suffer from any legal infirmity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Sardar Asmatullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th July, 2001. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑‑‑According to the office note, this petition is barred ‑by one day. An application has been moved for condonation of delay according to which the impugned judgment was passed on 19‑9‑2000. Application for supply of certified copy was made on 21‑9‑2000 and the same was obtained on 30‑10‑2000 and this petition was filed on 29‑r1‑2000 with a delay of one day. According to the certified copy of the judgment, the same was prepared on 30‑9‑2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Copying Agency for obtaining certified copy intimating the petitioners that the same had been prepared.

2. Since it is a question of delay of one day, therefore, in the interest of justice in order to decide the case on merits, we condone the delay.

3. The petitioners, through this petition want to assail the legality of judgment dated 19‑9‑2000 of the Lahore High Court through which their revision petition against the concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below has been dismissed.

4. The suit filed by the respondents to pre‑empt the sale of the land made in favour of the petitioners on the ground that they were collaterals of the vendors was decreed by the trial Court through. judgment, dated 17‑6‑1985 which was affirmed by the first appellate Court through judgment, dated t‑10‑1985 whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. Revision petition filed by them has been dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment dated 19‑9‑2000 against which leave is sought.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents did not produce evidence to connect them with the pedigree‑table, therefore, the findings of the Courts below are based on misreading of the evidence.

6. We have gone through the statement of Saeed Muhammad one of the plaintiffs who clearly stated in his examination‑in‑chief that the plaintiffs were the collaterals/Yakjaddi of the vendor. In cross‑examination the correctness of the same was not questioned whereas an attempt was made by the petitioners that they were, also alongwith the plaintiffs Yakjaddi of the vendor in the fifth degree whereas Saeed Muhammad stated that the petitioners were connected with the vendor in eleventh degree, therefore, it is clear that so far as plaintiffs being Yakjaddi in fifth degrees it is not disputed by the petitioner. The petitioners failed to prove that they were related to Muhammad Aslam vendor in nearer degree than the respondents‑plaintiffs. Pedigree7table (P.3) has been perused and we find that the finding of the Court below that the plaintiffs and Peera father of Muhammad Aslam vendor were related to each other through common ancestor Noor is correct as mention of fathers of the plaintiffs has been specifically made in this pedigree‑table.

7. The findings of facts recorded by all the Courts below against the petitioner do not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q.M.H:/M.A.K./N‑47/S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.