' This is Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree, dated 1-2-1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge. A suit for possession through pre-emption was filed on 31-7- 1975 on the ground that he is co-sharer in the Khata having purchased the land from the respondent No,1 vide registered sale-deed 11-2-1975 and 3-5-1975. The appellant/ plaintiff being owner in the estate and being tenant of suit land subsequently in view of the change in law and pre-emptive rights based on the ground of tenancy directed to be exclusively tribal by Revenue Courts, the ground was abandoned. The suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree, dated 2-10-1986. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur vide judgment and decree, dated 1-2- 1988 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant. The judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge is now challenged in the instant Regular Second Appeal.
2. The respondents have filed C.M. For rejection of the appeal on the ground that as no Talabs have been claimed to have been made by the appellants, no decree can be passed after the target date i,e, 31-7-1986. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on "Government of N.-W.F.P.
Through Secretary, Law Department v. Malik Said Kamal Shah" (PLD 1986 SC 360), "Sardar Ali and others v. Muhammad Ali and others" (PLD 1988 SC 287), "Mst. Ayesha Bibi v. Muhammad Sajid and others" (1995 SCM R 294), "Muhammad Aziz and others v. Syed Haider Ali Shah" (PLD 1991 SC 1080), (PLD 1990 SC 865), "Ghulam Hussain and others v. Mushtaq Ahmad and others" (PLD 1994 SC 870), "Muhammad Arif v, Mst. Amina Begum" (PLD 1990 SC 288), "Mst. Aziz Begum v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1990 SC 899), "Muhammad Yasin v. Khan Muhammad and others" (PLD 1990 SC 1060) and "Barkat Ali v. Nazir Ahmed" (1999 CLC 373), and were in full knowledge of the applicant when he filed suit and led necessary evidence before the learned trial Court, that the respondent has already filed C.M. For rejection of the R.S.A. As no decree can be passed after the target, date of 31-7-1986 and no clarification of any issue is required in this case, therefore, this application be dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Suit for possession through pre- emption in respect of 173 kanals and 1 Marla was filed by Muhammad Shafiq ' against Maj. (Retd). Muhammad Akram etc. On the basis that the plaintiff is a tenant for 11/12 years and has been cultivating the land as {{URDU TEXT}} and he is a co-sharer in the disputed property and co-owner in the estate. Almost all 12 issues along with issue No,12-A were framed. The applicant has already exhibited P.5 and P.6 and these documents he wants to produce to prove Exhs.P.5 and P.6. The provision of Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Is in respect of some important evidence for a material bearing on the merits of the case which is subsequently discovered and after its discovery later on he has a course upon for review of judgment after it has been pronounced, he can file application for additional evidence before the learned Appellate Court as appeal is re- hearing of the merits of case. The appellant wants to prove that he is co-owner and a co-sharer with the vendor. It is held in "Ali Muhammad v. Shera and another" (1987 SCM R 207) -Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act--appellant claiming superior right on ground of being co-sharer with vendor -- finding of fact being that appellant had earlier purchased specific Killas and not undivided share from sole proprietor and thus could not be considered a co-sharer--Plea that number of Khata from which land was purchased had not been partitioned and thus appellant was co-sharer with vendor, repelled -- If specific Killa numbers were sold by sole proprietor to appellant, it would not amount to sale of unspecified or definite share so as to make him a co- sharer in Khata.
4. In the present case C.M. No,520 of 2000 is given after 25 years. It was neither moved before the learned trial Court nor before the learned appellate Court nor with the Regular Second Appeal. This application for additional evidence has been moved after the learned counsel for the respondent has filed a C.M. For rejection of the appeal on the basis of "Said Kamal case", therefore, equity will not come to the aid of a person who is dormant and indolent upon his own rights. Even otherwise in the instant case the decree was passed by the learned trial Court on 2-10-1986, after the target, date 31-7-1986 which is liable to be set aside. No cogent or reasonable grounds exist to allow the application, the same is dismissed.