' On 25-11-1969 Sultan Bibi respondent filed suit for possession by pre-emption against Din Muhammad and others. The suit was resisted whereon nine issues were framed. The trial Court decreed the suit on 29-11-1972. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed appeal which was dismissed on 9-5-1981 by the District Judge, Bahawalpur, hence this revision.
2. Before me the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised following points: (i) that Mst. Sultan Bibi respondent/plaintiff was directed to deposit Zar-i-Panjam before 21-1-1970 but on 20-1-1970 on her application the time was extended for four days without notice to the petitioners/defendants;
(ii) that the respondent had no superior right of pre-emption and the Courts below have not properly appreciated issue No.1 (iii) that the defendants have successfully proved that the respondent/plaintiff had waived her right of pre-emption if any. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the learned Courts below.
3. I have considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners I find that no doubt, the trial Court extended four days time for the deposit of Zar-i-Panjam without notice to the respondent/plaintiff but the petitioners, did not challenge the same through appeal/revision at that time. So much so that this objection was not raised in the memorandum of appeal and was also not argued before the learned District Judge: that being the position, I am of the view that it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners/defendants to agitate this question before this Court at this stage. As for point No.2 I find that the Issue No.1 is more or less an issue of fact. Both the Courts below have applied their conscious mind to the evidence on record. Learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading/non-reading of material evidence by the Courts below. The Courts below have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by them and as such point No.2 is without substance. So far as point No.3 is concerned the finding of the trial Court on the issue of waiver was not challenged before the District Judge. The trial Court after having properly appreciated the question of waiver has decided the issue against the petitioners/defendants. The learned counsel has not been able to show any infirmity in the finding of the learned trial Court on this issue. I also find that there is no cogent evidence on record to prove the waiver. For all these reasons I am convinced that no exception can be taken to the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below.
' For what has been stated above, there being no merit, the petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.