1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-12-1980 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 9959 of 1980.
2. The relevant facts are that one Nasim Mahmood predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, filed a petition against Respondent No. 2 (Muhammad Zubair) on 3-9-1975 seeking his ejectment from Shop No. 12 Beadon Road, Lahore, on the ground of default in payment of rent, personal requirement and damage done to the property by him. The Rent Controller vide his order dated 30-6-1977 accepted the petition. Respondent No. 2, therefore, challenged the aforementioned order in appeal and the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide his order dated 18-3-1978 set aside the order of his ejectment and accepted his appeal. This order was further challenged by a second appeal (S. A. O. No. 213 of 1978) by Nasim Mahmood before the Lahore High Court and remained pending till 22-4-1980 on which date it was withdrawn. The reason for this unusual withdrawal of second appeal was that Nasim Mahmood without awaiting the result of the appeal and without disclosing about its pendency in the High Court filed another ejectment petition on 8- 1-1979 on the same grounds, namely, default, personal need and damage done to the property (though the period of default was naturally different from the one given in the earlier petition). An ex parte order of ejectment was obtained from the Rent Controller on 22-1-1979, which was followed by a decree dated 8-2-1979. The landlord, thereafter, obtained possession of the shop in dispute on 25-4-1979 and obtained the execution of the aforementioned decree. On the case day, namely, 25-4-1979. Respondent No. 2 moved an application under Order IX, rule 13, C. P. C. Before the Rent Controller for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that it was obtained fraudulently without his knowledge and without notice to him. The Rent Controller suspended the operation of the ex parte decree on 25-4-1979 but ultimately dismissed the application on 24-7- 1979. Aggrieved by the last-mentioned order and earlier order dated 8-2-1979. Respondent No. 2 filed an appeal accompanied by an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appeal was accepted on 10-9-1980 by the learned Addi--tional District Judge, Lahore, who held that the ex parte decree was obtained fraudulently by the landlord Nasim Mahmood. It may be mentioned that in the meanwhile on 7-7-1979 Nasim Mahmood had sold the property to the present petitioners and, therefore, the said petitioners challenged the order of the Additional District Judge in the Lahore High Court by filing a writ petition. It was contended before the High Court that the appeal against the order dated 8-2-1979 was barred by time and that the order of the Rent Controller refusing to set aside the ex parse decree dated 24-7-1979 was not appealable, that the present petitioners having purchased the disputed property on 7-7-1979 through a registered sale- deed for valuable consideration without notice should not be penalised even if there was some lapse on the part of their predecessor, which could not be attributed to them. The learned Judge in the High Court held that Nasim Mahmood, the predecessor of the petitioners, had filed an appeal assailing the order of the Additional District Judge in the Lahore High Court but while the same was still pending he instituted another ejectment petition against respondent No. 2 and obtained an ex parse order of his ejectment on practically the same grounds on which the earlier petition was moved and without disclosing the factum of his appeal being pending in the High Court. He also alienated the property in dispute during the pendency of the appeal contrary to the clear commitment made by him that he would not do so and against the order of stay issued by the trial Court. He also made a false statement on 17-7-1979 in the trial Court wherein he posed himself to be the owner of the property in dispute, although be had already alienated the same on 7-7-1979 in favour of the petitioners.
3. As for the ground that the order refusing to set aside the ex parte order of ejectment was not appealable it was held that the ejectment order assumed the character of the decree and could be appealed against. So far as the plea of the petitioners that they should not be penalised for the lapse of their predecessors-in-interest Nasim Mahmood it was observed that the petitioners being successors-in-interest would succeed to the rights and liabilities of their predecessor-in-interest in relation to the shop. The circum--stances were that Respondent No. 2 apprehended the alienation of the disputed property in favour of the present petitioners and, therefore, moved an application in the trial Court to restrain Nasim Mahmood from alienating the property and as they were neighbours and litigation was going on between them they could not be unaware of the proceedings pending in the Courts in respect of the disputed property. In these circumstances, the High Court refused to interfere in the writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners.
4. 'Before us, it was again argued that the appeal before the Additional "District Judge against the refusal to set aside the ex parte order was not appealable. This point was also raised before the learned Single Judge of the High Court, who negatived it observing that this point was not raised before the Additional District Judge and, therefore, could not be raised with success in writ jurisdiction. In this connection, he relied upon this Court's decision in Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (Pakistan), Lahore, etc. (PLD 1964 SC 829), Muhammad Hussain Munir and others v. Sikandar and o hers (PLD 1974 SC 139) and Mian Muhammad Hafiz, etc. v. Aziz Ahmad, etc. (1980 SCMR 557).
5. We are entirely in accord with the view of the learned Judge in the High Court and are satisfied that the present petitioners could not but be aware of the proceedings between Nasim Mahmood and the petitioners and that they had bought the property at their own risk. As for the plea that no appeal was competent before the Additional District Judge, this point has been elaborately dealt with by the High Court and we also feel that the High Court was justified in not countenancing it in writ proceedings. The decisions of this Court relied upon by the High Court were relevant in the circumstances of the present case and we might further refer also to the decision of this Court in Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali, etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236) which is to similar effect.
6. There is, therefore, no force in. This petition which must fail and is dismissed hereby.