' Briefly stated the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that a suit for possession through pre-emption was filed by Bakhshan and Haji Karim Bakhsh. During the pendency of the suit Haji Karim Bakhsh, died and as his legal representatives were not brought on record the learned trial Court dismissed the suit. On appeal the decree of dismissal of suit was reversed accepting the plea that Bakhshan the present respondent was entitled to have a decree in his favour on the basis of his own superior right of pre-emption. The legal representatives of Haji Karim Bakhsh some of whom were joined in the appeal as appellants and the others who were joined as respondents made the statement to the effect that they withdraw themselves from the suit. The learned appellate Court thereafter decreed the suit as according to the finding of the learned trial Court Bakhshan respondent, being a co-sharer, was held to be possessed of superior right of pre-emption and this finding was not controverted before the appellate Court. This decree of the appellate Court, dated 28th May, 1984 was then challenged by filing the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel in support of the revision petition argued that the legal representatives of Haji Karim Bakhsh could not be allowed to withdraw from the suit at the appeal stage. There is no merit in this submission. The effect of non-impleading of legal representatives by one of the plaintiffs was that the other plaintiff, namely, Bakhshan (respondent) was left in the field and the said only plaintiff could rightly claim a decree in his favour on the proof of his own preferential right of pre- emption. Reference in this respect Is made to Mst. Said Begum and others v. Noor Ahmad and others PLD 1978 SC 133. The decree granted to Bakhshan respondent is justified in law. No interference is thus called for in revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is dismissed in limine.