1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of a shop in a building situated on Burns Road, Karachi which is owned by respondents Nos. 1 to 3. In this shop, the business is carried on under the name of Messrs Service Medical and General Stores. According to the respondents, the shop is a sole proprietorship business owned by the 4th respondent. The petitioner's contention is that it is a partnership business and owned by Umar Abdullah and Abdur Razzaq Ahmad. The building was purchased by the first three respondents in 1963. As the building was required for reconstruction, these respon--dents, in March 1965, filed eviction application under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against all their tenants on the ground that they wanted to rebuild their property. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 recognized the fourth respon--dent as the tenant of the shop and filed the eviction application against him for obtaining the possession of the shop in dispute. Respondent No. 4 contested the application. The Rent Controller, by order dated the 30th November 1967, allowed the eviction application on the ground of reconstruction of the building. The fourth respondent challenged this order in Appeal No. 573 of 1967 which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi, by order dated the 19th February 1968. The fourth respondent challenged this order in appeal before the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi.
2. At this stage, the petitioners became aware of the ejectment proceedings instituted against the fourth respondent. They obtained a certified copy of the order of the learned Additional District Judge in First Appeal No. 573 of 1967 and filed an appeal in the High Court on the 27th March 1968.
3. The appeal was admitted for hearing but it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court on the 5th March 1971, on the ground that the petitioners are not the aggrieved persons. The learned counsel for the petitioners informs us that the petitioners have obtained certificate for filing the Letters Patent Appeal and the L. P. A. Is pending against the said order.
4. It further appears that the first three respondents filed execu--tion proceedings for the ejectment of the fourth respondent from the shop in dispute. On the 11th April 1968, they obtained an order from the III Civil Judge, Karachi, for breaking open the lock of the shop in absentia and with police aid. On the same day, before the first three respondents could obtain possession of the shop, the petitioners filed an application before the III Civil Judge to stay the execution of the writ of ejectment ordered by him under Order XXI, rule 99, C. P. C. This application was dismissed on the same day and the petitioners have challenged this order in Civil Revision before the High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi. It may be mentioned that the petitioners have also filed an application under Order XXI, rule 100, C. P. C. And have also filed a suit on the ground of fraud against respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and have obtained injunction restraining them from demolishing the building. The revision application was also dismissed by the High Court on the 5th March 1971.
5. The petitioners seek permission to file an appeal against the said order.
6. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the learned Civil Judge ought not to have dismissed the application under Order XXI, rule 99 summarily and should have issued notice to the respondents and decided the dispute between the parties on merits. The contention of the petitioners appears to be well founded but this has now only become academic question as the petitioners have already been evicted from the property in dispute. Their proper remedy was under Order XXI, rule 100, C. P. C. Which they have already taken and, therefore, they should agitate the dispute between the parties in the said proceedings. We expect that the learned Civil Judge will go into the question whether any fraud was played on the petitioners in the eviction proceedings which were taken against respondent No. 4. This point can also be decided in the suit filed by the petitioners. In the circumstances of the present case, we do not consider it as fit case for interference under our special jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.