JUDGMENT : BURKITT, J. On the 20th of November, 1903, we gave judgment in second appeal No. 896 of 1901, By that judgment we set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and dismissed the suit. Subsequently an application was made to us to review that judgment, and that application having been admitted, has now come on for argument. The application was made on the ground of discovery of new evidence which was not in the possession of the applicant when the appeal was before us. That new evidence is a copy of the wajib-ul-arz which formed the ground-work of our decision. A copy of that wajib-ul-orz was before us at the hearing but it was represented to us by the learned vakil for the applicant that that wajib-ul-arz was incorrect in a material portion. In that wajib-ul-arz the first category of persons entitled to pre-empt was “bhai pattidar”. From the copy of the wajib-ul-arz, which has now been presented to us, we find that by some mistake of the copyist the word hakiki has been omitted and the entry should run “bhai hakiki pattidar.” It is contended that this being the case, our judgment was wrong. We have considered the matter very carefully and have come to the conclusion that this corrected copy of the wajib-ul-arz does not call for any modification of our judgment. In one matter certainly it does make a difference, namely, neither the pre-emptor nor the vendee can be held to belong to the first category. They are not own brothers and the words “bhai hakiki” can apply only to persons who stand in that relation to one another. 2. That being so, we came to the second category which is “pattidar qaribi.” Those words we can interpret to imply nothing more than nearness of relationship and not vicinity. The parties being all descended front a common ancestor, one may be more nearly related to the vendor” (as here) than the other. But in our, opinion that makes no difference. The wajib-ul-atz does give the right of preemption to a near (qaribi) co-sharer, but it does not lay down that a nearer co-sharer in relationship to the vendor is entitled as against one more remote. We think that all “pattidars qaribi” who come within the category are on the same level. But in our, opinion that makes no difference. The wajib-ul-atz does give the right of preemption to a near (qaribi) co-sharer, but it does not lay down that a nearer co-sharer in relationship to the vendor is entitled as against one more remote. We think that all “pattidars qaribi” who come within the category are on the same level. That being so, we see no reason for in any way altering the order we passed in this case at the former hearing, though that order will now be based on a different consideration. We hold now that the parties are on the same level in the second category, while formerly we held that they were on the same level in the first category. For these reasons we affirm our judgment in this case with costs against the applicant.