SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order dated 2-3-1987 of the Lahore High Court dismissing the revision petition of the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the legal representatives of Hafiz Muhammad Nawaz who together with a number of other persons brought a suit for pre-emption arising out of as of agricultural land. The superior right claimed in the suit was based on grounds of co-ownership in the Khata of which the land in dispute formed a part and relationship with the vendor. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The pre-emptors preferred an appeal before the District Judge. In the appeal the ground of co-ownership in the Khata was not pressed. The learned District Judge found that the pre-emptors had led no evidence to show that they were collaterals of the vendor. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. The pre-emptors then filed a regular second appeal in the High Court which was later converted into a revision petition. The High Court found no fault with the finding of the learned District Judge and dismissed the revision petition.
3. It appears that while the appeal was pending before the District Judge an application was made by the pre-emptors that they should be permitted to place on record copy of a pedigree table which supported their assertion with regard to relationship with the vendor. This application was rejected by the learned District Judge on the ground that even though the suit had remained pending before the trial Court for 41 years the pre-emptors had not cared to place the pedigree table on the record. The High Court declined to reverse the decision of the learned District Judge in this regard.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has not been able to satisfy us that the pre- emptors had any acceptable explanation' in not producing the pedigree table as part of their evidence before the trial Court. That being so, the decision of the learned District Judge in refusing to receive the pedigree table in evidence does not suffer from any infirmity. Admittedly apart from the said document there was no evidence showing that the pre-emptors were collaterals of the vendor. As regards the plea that one of the pre-emptors was also a co-sharer in the Khata it cannot be registered after it was expressly given up before the District Judge. We do not find any merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.