' S. A. NUSRAT, J.-The dispute in this Petition relates to Survey Nos. 105 and 268, situated in Deh Landhi, Tapo, Landhi, Karachi. It is alleged that one Abdul Rehman, who was the father of petitioner No. 1 and the grandfather of petitioner No, 2, had been in lawful possession of the said survey numbers, which he had developed and improved with hard labour and investment. The Secretary, Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee, served Abdul Rehman with an ejectment order dated 28th October, 1970, calling upon him to vacate the said land. He preferred an appeal against the said 4er which was decided by the Commissioner and Chairman, Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee, as per his order dated 2-1-1971, directing that as the case fell within the ambit of Tenancy Act, necessary proceedings should be filed before Revenue Court. The direction contained in the said order, however, was not implemented and the respondent No, 3 served Abdu Rehman with an ejectment notice dated 3rd March, 1973. Abdul Rehman challenged the notice of ejectment by filing an appeal before the, Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, but the same was dismissed on 3-7- 1973. Abdul Rehman then applied for review of the order dated 3-7-1973 which was dismissed in limine on 26-1-1974. He, thereupon filed a Civil Suit No, 406/74 for declaration that the order dated 26-1-1974 had been passed in violation of the Provisioris of sub-clause (v) of Clause (xv) of Chapter 'VIII of the Scheme for Management and Disposal of Evacuee Trust Properties, 1971. In the said suit an order of injunction dated 27-2-1974 was granted but the same was later vacated on 1-9-1974.
Abdul Rehman filed an appeal challenging the said order in the Court of 6th Additional District Judge, Karachi. The counsel for the respondent filed a statement dated 2-12-1974, ' in the said appeal giving an undertaking that the Review Application of the appellant will be disposed of according to law after necessary hearing. As a result of this undertaking the learned Additional District Judge, dismissed the appeal with a direction that the respondent No. 1 should dispose of the Review Application after hearing the appellant. Later the counsel for the respondent made a statement is the pending Suit No, 406/74 itself, on 16-9-1975, stating that the respondent had withdrawn 1 he order dated 26-1-1974 and the learned Civil Judge on the same date dismissed the suit as having become infructuous. It may be mentioned that Abdul Rehman having expired during the pendency of Suit No, 406/74, the petitioners had been duly brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased on 17-241975. It is alleged that the petitioners have been working with the deceased and cultivating the disputed land and necessary Dhul was also paid by Abdul Rehman and later by the petitioners themselves from 1975 to 1978 as per receipts filed with this petition. 'It is alleged that while the petitioners were waiting for a notice of hearing of the Review Application in terms of the Order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 2-12-1974, they were served with two notices dated 30th November, 1978 and while they had gone to see their Advocate for consultation, the respondents in their absence took possession of the survey numbers in question and sealed one room/hut , standing on the land, which contained agricultural equipment and other goods of the petitioners. The petitioners have brought this petition challenging the impugned notices, Annexures "L-1 and L-2" dated 30th November, 1978 and also their ejectment from Survey Nos. 105 and 268, Deh Landhi.
2. Mr. Makhdoom Pirzada Tanweer argued the petition at length but his main grievance, however, was that the respondents had acted without lawful authority by disregarding the undertaking given by their counsel, and the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Karachi on 2- 12-1974, whereby the respondent No. 1 was directed to fix a date for the hearing of the Review Application and dispose of the same on merits after providing reasonable opportunity to Abdul Rehman, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellant. The learned counsel contended that the order of the learned Additional District {{PAGE BLUR}} Judge dated 2nd December, 1974 was binding upon the respondent as no appeal was filed against the same and, in the circumstances, the respondents had no jurisdiction to either issue the impugned ejectment notice or to eject them from the disputed land. The grievance of the learned counsel appear to be perfectly justified but we feel that the proper remedy for the petitioners still lies with respondent No. 1, because in terms of the undertaking given c on his behalf and the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 2nd December, 1974, passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No 182/74, the said respondent is legally bound to dispose of the Review Application of the deceased Abdul Rehman, the Predecessor-in-Interest of the petitioners, which is deemd to be pending and not disposed of. The learned counsel frankly conceded that the petitioner had not applied to the respondent No. 1 for the bearing of the Review application for complying with the order of the learned District Judge, dated 2-12-1974. This course of action being still available to the petitioners, the learned counsel stated that he will be satisfied if the petition was dismissed with necessary observations so as to enable the petitioners to move the learned respondent No. 1 for hearing the Reveiw Application as also for the restoration of the land from which they were dispossessed on the basis of the impugned notices of ejectment, if so permitted by law. In view of the clear direction contained in the order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 2-12-1974. It is not neces.Sary'for us to issue any direction while dismissing this petition, as we are sure, that the learned respondent No. 1 will act in accordance with law, after the facts recounted hereinabove are brought to his notice.
3. For the aforesaid reasons we are not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage and the petition is, therefore, dismissed subject to the observations made hereinabove, which should satisfy the petitioners, Petition dissm issed. 6ntt 73ts.