JUDGMENT

Mahmood, J. - We are of opinion that the appeal, so far as it relates to the question of limitation, has no force. Haidar Ali's suit, so far as it claimed pre-emption in respect of the sale of 14th December 1882, was properly instituted within a year after the sale, and the vendor and the vendees, necessary parties to such a suit, were duly impleaded.

2. The suit was governed by Article 10 of the Limitation Act, and was obviously within time. So far as the position of Durga, appellant, is concerned, it is true that he was impleaded as defendant to the suit after the lapse of one year from the date of the sale. But the claim against him is not of the nature contemplated by Article 10 of the Limitation Act. He was impleaded, not because he was a party to the sale in respect of which pre-emption was sought to be enforced, but because he had, by instituting a rival suit for pre-emption, rendered it necessary for the plaintiff Haidar Ali to pray in his suit for the declaration that he had a right of pre-emption preferential to that of the defendant Durga. Such a claim cannot be regarded as a claim for pre-emption, but a claim to establish a right to pre-empt the property in prefe