ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN, J.-- The sole point agitated in the High Court in this case was The respondent-plaintiff had no superior right of pre-emption and is not collateral of the vendor. This point has been decided against the petitioners by all the three Courts and we could not be shown any misreading or non-reading of any evidence. It was simply urged that the pedigreetable has not been exhibited. However, it could not be denied that the pedigreetable has been requisitioned from the Central Record Room and was available on the record. Moreover, the oral evidence as discussed in the impugned judgment also appears to be sufficient to prove that the vendor was the collateral of the plaintiff. It was next submitted that the plaintiff had associated himself with the disputed sale transaction and, therefore, has waived right of pre-emption. This point does not find mention in the impugned judgment nor in the judgment of the Appellate Court, therefore, it could not be agitated for the first time. Reliance on Khan Muhammad Yusuf Khan Khattak Vs. S.M. Ayub and 2 others (PLD 1973 SC 160) about mode of proving a document is misplaced.
2. In view of the reasons stated above, this petition is dismissed and .