Law: Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913)

Section: 15

Law: Evidence Act (I of 1872)

Section: 115

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXII, r. 3

(a) Punjab Pre-emption Act (I of 1913) S. 15 and Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 115--Estoppel-Non suit ing a pre-emptor on ground of estoppel-Very strong and cogent evidence needed--Discrepancies in evidence of appellant existing Plea of estoppel, held, not substantiated. -[Estoppel]. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O. XXII, r. 3 [as amended by Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972] & S. 152-One of plaintiffs dying during pendency of suit impleading of legal heirs not necessary-Suit could be proceeded with and decided as if plaintiff bad not died-Surviving plaintiff dropping deceased plaintiff's name in amended plaint-Such name also omitted from decrees of both Courts below-Omission, held, clerical mistake-Both Courts below directed under S. 152 to add plaintiff's name in respective decrees. Date of hearing : 27th October, 1979.                                                                                                                               JUDGMENT This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree, date the 14th November, 1978 passed by the District Judge, Kasur, whereby he had dismissed the first appeal of the appellants, Muhammad Ishaq and three others, against the judgment and decree, dated the 22nd December, 1977 of a Civil Judge of Kasur, by which he decreed a suit for pre-emption brought by the respondents, Dilawar and three others. 2. The appellants, who are vendees of the land in dispute, resiste the suit inter alia on the ground that the respondents had participated in the negotiation regarding the sale of the said land and had thus waive their right of pre-emption. Therefore, one of the issues framed by to learned Civil Judge was to the following effect :- "Are the plaintiffs estopped by their conduct from filing the preset suit ? O. P. D." The appellants led evidence on the above issue and the…