' This regular second appeal has arisen out of a pre-emption suit brought by the respondent, Bahadar, against the appellants, Haii and others. The suit was resisted by the appellants inter alia on the ground that the respondent has waived his right of pre-emption. They also claimed compensation for making improvements on the land in dispute. A Civil Judge of Toba Tak Singh, who heard the suit, did not accept the plea of waiver and also did not allow any compensation for the alleged improvements. Appellants, therefore, went in appeal before the District. Judge, Toba Tak Singh. Learned District Judge also maintained findings of the learned trial Court on the issue of waiver but allowed Rs,6,000/- to the appellants as compensation. Feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, they have come up in second appeal to this Court.
2. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the respondent was present at the time of sale and, therefore, he was estopped from pre-empting the sale. The law is well settled on the point that 'mere presence of a party does not debar him from filing a suit for pre-emption.
Therefore, eJen if the respondent was present at the time of sale he was not esto-pped from pre- empting the sale. The two Courts below have recorded concurrent finding against the appellants on the question of waiver. No misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other defect justifying interference with that finding was pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants. I am, therefore, unable to disturb it.
3. As for improvement, it was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants brought the land in dispute under cultivation but no compensation was allowed to them for so doing. It was pointed out by the learned District Judge that the appellants did not claim any sum for bringing the land under cultivation and, therefore, he was unable to allow them any relief in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellants did not point out anything showing the amount demanded by them for the above improvement. Order of the learned District Judge in this regard, is, therefore, not open to any legitimate exception.
4. There is no merit in this appeal. It is dismissed in limine.