1987 PLP 2263 (MLD)

(b) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

S.4--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100--Pre-emption- Waiver--Two Courts below recording concurrent finding against appellants on question of waiver and no misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other defect justifying interference with that finding pointed out by appellants--Interference declined by High Court in second appeal. (c) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

S.4--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100--Pre-emption suit- Improvement

Appellants-vendees claiming compensation for making improvement on land in dispute--Appellate Court below disallowing compensation as no claim was put up by them for bringing land under cultivation--Appellants also unable to point out any thing showing amount demanded by them for much improvements--Order of Appellate Court below, held, not open to any legitimate exception. Rana Abdul Hameed Khan for Appellants. This regular second appeal has arisen out of a pre-emption suit brought by the respondent, Bahadar, against the appellants Haji and others. The suit was resisted by the appellants inter alia on, the ground that the respondent has waived his right of pre-emption. They also claimed compensation for making improvements on the land in dispute. A Civil Judge of Toba Tak Singh, who heard the suit, did not accept the plea of waiver and also did not allow any compensation for the alleged improvements. Appellants, therefore, went in appeal before the District Judge, Toba Tak Singh. Learned District Judge also maintained findings of the learned trial Court or the issue of waiver but allowed Rs.6,000/- to the appellants as compensation. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, they have come up in second appeal to this Court.

2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent was present at the time of sale and, therefore, hey was estopped from pre-empting the sale. The law is well settled on the point that mere presence of a party does not debar him from filing a suit for pre-emption. Therefore, even if the respondent was present at the time of sale he was not estopped from pre-empting the sale. The two Courts below have recorded concurrent finding against the appellants on the question of waiver. No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other defect justifying interference with that finding was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants. I am, therefore, unable to disturb it.

3. As for improvement, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants brought the land in dispute under cultivation but no compensation was allowed to them for so doing. It was pointed out by the learned District Judge that the appellants did not claim any sum for bringing the land under cultivation and, therefore, he was unable to allow them any relief in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellants did riot point out anything showing the amount demanded by them for the above improvement. Order of the learned District Judge in this regard, is, therefore, not open to any legitimate exception.

4. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./H-33/L Petition dismissed.