' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---Petitioners/vendees seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 23-1-1996 whereby revision petition (Civil Revision No,2307-D of 1985) filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed and their suit for possession through preemption decreed.
2. Petitioners purchased land measuring 16 Kanals and 9 Marlas from one Ali Muhammad. The sale was pre-empted by the respondents who filed the suit for possession claiming their superior pre- emptive right on the ground, inter alia, that they were the collaterals of the vendor. The suit was contested by the petitioners. Learned Trial Court after framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties decreed the respondents' suit holding on the basis of the pedigree- table Exh.P/3 and the statement of Habib Ullah defendant as D.W.1 that the respondents were the collaterals of the vendor and thus had superior pre-emptive right. The Appellate Court reversed the findings on the issue of superior right of pre-emption and dismissed the respondents' suit, on the ground that none of the plaintiffs had appeared in the witness-box to support their claim of being the collaterals of the vendor although it was noted that Habib Ullah defendant appearing as D.W.1 had supported the respondents' relationship with the vendor.
3. On revision filed by the respondents, the learned Judge in the High Court held that the lower Appellate Court acted illegally in failing to give effect to the statement of D.W.1 who admitted in cross-examination the relationship of the vendor with the plaintiffs. Revision petition of the plaintiffs was accordingly accepted and their suit decreed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the pedigree-table Exh.P.3 (copy available at page 41 of the paper book) as also the statement of Habib Ullah D.W.1.
Entries in the pedigree-table when read with the admission of Habib Ullah D.W.1, made in cross- examination establish the claim of the plaintiffs that they are collaterals of the vendor. That being so, the impugned judgment of the High Court is based on the correct appraisal of the evidence.
This petition has no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.