SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- Pathana, predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 to 8, and Sohna, petitioner No.9, jointly purchased in equal shares agricultural land out of a joint khata. Allah Yar, respondent filed a suit for pre-emption. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal it was decreed by the District Judge. Pathana and Sohna filed a second appeal in the High Court. In 1968 when the second appeal was still pending Pathana died. The application for bringing his legal representatives on record was made on 24-2-1987 which was rejected on the ground of limitation.
The High Court then dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had abated. The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the decision of the High Court.
2. There is a finding by the High Court that the sale made in favour of Pathana and Sohna was indivisible. That being so, the decree obtained by the respondent was also indivisible. In the circumstances the view taken by the High Court that the failure to implead the legal representatives of Pathana within time resulted in total abatement of the appeal does not suffer from any infirmity. In fact it finds support from a decision of this Court reported as Shah Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh PLD 1972 SC 321. This petition is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.