' ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM, J.---This appeal by leave arises in the following circumstances.
1. Respondent No.1 Javid Iqbal filed a suit for specific performance. An application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Was filed for permission to amend the plaint impleading the subsequent vendees, the appellants. It was disallowed by the learned trial Court on 8-9-1982. The respondents filed a revision petition. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the same ex parte and allowed the respondents to amend the plaint. The appellants challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge through Writ Petition No.466 before the Lahore High Court which was disposed of with the observations that the grounds taken in the writ petition may be agitated before the Additional District Judge. The appellants did so. The learned Additional District Judge upheld his previous order. The appellants filed a fresh Writ Petition No.3264 of 1983 in the Lahore High Court which has been dismissed by a learned Judge on 24-1-1989. Hence the appeal.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Additional District Judge did not have pecuniary jurisdiction at the relevant time.
3. Not only the point was never taken before the learned Additional District Judge but what the learned Additional District Judge has done is to allow the respondents to amend the plaint to implead the appellants who are subsequent vendees of the property in dispute in respect of which the suit for specific performance is pending. Instead of objecting to being impleaded and heard, the appellants should welcome the opportunity to defend their rights otherwise they might be hit by doctrine of lis pendens.
4. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merits in this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed.