' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners seek leave to appeal against Lahore High Court, judgment, dated 3-11-2000 passed in Regular First Appeal No, 185 of 1986 dismissing the same and thereby upholding concurrent findings of fact recorded by two Courts below decreeing a suit for pre- emption filed by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 against the petitioners.
2. Petitioner Muhammad Ibrahim purchased 52/196th share, petitioner Sultan purchased 64/196th share while petitioner Bashir Ahmad was purchaser of 8/196th share in the suit land. Petitioner Bashir Ahmad claimed to be the tenant whereas petitioners Muhammad Ibrahim and Sultan happened to be the owners in the estate. They claimed having paid the price for their respective shares separately but the finding of fact recorded by all the Courts is to the contrary. Trial Court, after recording evidence of the parties, decreed the suit subject to payment of Rs,3,50,000. First appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Jhang. Being still dissatisfied, petitioners filed regular second appeal before Lahore High Court but without any success, hence this petition.
3. We have heard Chaudhry Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and carefully gone through I the record. It has been concurrently held that petitioner Bashir Ahmad failed to establish that he was the tenant of the land and, though, petitioner Muhammad Ibrahim and Sultan were found to be the owners in the estate, they, having joined hands with respondents Nos.5 to 23, had lost their superior right of pre-emption in the land.
Petitioners' plea as to A the divisibility of the sale transaction was also discarded by the trial Court as well as the appellate forums. Perusal of the First Appellate Court judgment tends to reflect that in fact such findings were not challenged before the said Court. In this backdrop of the matter, learned Judge in Chambers was justified in not inferring with findings of fact.
4. Learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners attempted to argue that the, claim of the petitioners was materially hit by the principle of sinker in view of petitioner Bashir Ahmad being tenant of the land purchased by him. We are afraid, we cannot subscribe to this submission of the learned counsel as this ground was never agitated before the forums below. It is evident from the written statement of the petitioners that while denying superior right of pre-emption of contesting respondents, petitioners Muhammad Ibrahim and Sultan claimed to be the owners in the estate whereas petitioner Bashir Ahmad claimed to be an old tenant of the land. As observed earlier, this plea was not accepted by the trial Court and, for valid reasons, upheld by the appellate forums.
Since the petitioners were non-suited on both grounds and plea of sinker was neither expressly nor impliedly raised before the forums below. We are not inclined to permit learned counsel to raise it for the first time as no question of law is made out. Furthermore, the parties have been litigating over the land in suit for the last more than two decades and finality is attached to judgments impugned.
5. No other question of law of public importance has been raised at the hearing of the petition, which is found to be without any merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.