1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.----The dispute relates to Kharsa Nos. 53, 54, 55, 56 and 58 which were sold by Mst. Kaniz Ahmad to respondent Ghulam Muhammad by a registered sale deed dated the 2501 July 1961. Petitioner Lal Khan brought a suit for pre-emotion on the basis of his being joint holder in the khata. The suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner. The respondent's first appeal before the Additional District Judge having been unsuccessful he preferred a second appeal before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal, and dismissed the suit.
2. In the High Court the petitioner for the first time raised a new ground for pre-emotion, namely, that the petitioner is a pattidar.
3. The learned Judge of the High Court rightly disallowed the petitioner from changing the basis of his claim for pre-emotion. The petitioner as has been noticed already claimed on the basis of his being a khatedar and it has been found by the Courts below that he was not a khatedar. The petitioner never amended his plaint, and even in the High Court where the new ground for pre-- emption was sought to be urged he never applied for amendment of the plaint as is evident from the judgment of the learned Single Judge itself. The right of pre-emotion being in the nature of a piratical right the Courts have always leaned against it and while allowing such a right have always insisted upon a strict compliance of the law applicable to pre-emotion.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has conceded that one must be a pattidar before he can be a khatedar and that all pattidars are not khatedars. That being so, it is not merely enough for the petitioner to prove that he was a pattidar but that he was also required to prove that he became a khatedar in order to succeed in his suit. This petitioner has failed to do.
5. It has also been contended that the counsel for the respondent had admitted that the petitioner was a joint khatedar and there--fore the respondent was bound by such admission. The learned Judge of the High Court observed that there was nothing on the record to show that any such admission was made by the counsel for the respondent.
6. The matter is concluded by concurrent findings of fact. There is no substance in this petition and it is accordingly dismissed.