1. G. SAIDAR SHAH, J.--The dispute in this case relates to112 kanals and 14 marlas of land situate at Zafarwal, Tehsil Narowali, District Sialkot. The land in question was sold to the petitioners. But in order to pre-empt the sale transaction the respondents filed two suits against him on the ground that being co-sharers in the khata, they had the superior right.
2. Vide his judgment dated 28-7-19.75, however, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suits of the respondents on the ground that they had neither signed the plaint nor had verified the same.
3. Against the judgments of the trial Judge, the respondents went in appeals to the Court of the District Judge, who allowed the same and remanded the cases to the learned trial Judge to get the plaints signed and verified by the respondents. On receipt of the cases on remand, the learned trial Judge, vide his judgments, dated 21-2-1978, complied with the said directions given to him by the District Judge, and thereafter decreed the suits of the respondents. Being aggrieved, the, petitioners first went in appeals to the Court of the District Judge, but the same were dismissed and thereafter their second appeals were dismissed by the High Court in limine, vide judgments, dated 20-10-1979.
4. In seeking leave to appeal against the judgments of the High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended-
(1) that the signatures of the respondents had been obtained on the plaints after the expiry of one year and so their suits were evidently barred by time ; and
(2) that a part of the land in dispute in fact belonged to the Municipality, and consequently no decree of pre-emotion could be granted in favour of the petitioners.
5. In so far as the first contention is concerned it has no force in it. The learned counsel conceded before us that the respondents had all along prosecuted their suits with diligence and had appeared as their own witnesses. In these circumstances, the non-signing of the plaints by them at the proper stage was a mere irregularity, and consequently the learned District Judge was entirely justified to direct that the said irregularity may be rectified. Furthermore, the learned counsel has not been able to show as to how he has been prejudiced, therefore, the objection raised by him is only technical the moreso when substantial justice has been done between the parties.
6. As to the second contention urged by the learned counsel, suffice it to say that he has raised the same for the first time in this Court, and consequently it cannot be permitted to be raised, as it would evidently involve an inquiry into facts.
7. These petitions, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed.