1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-This petition is barred by 41 days.
2. We have perused the application for condonation of delay and heard the learned counsel for both the parties. We think that the delay has been satisfactorily explained, which is, accordingly, condoned. We, accordingly, proceed to hear the petition on merits.
3. This petition is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dated 6- 11-1979 passed in L. P. A. No. 1.7 of 1968, where--by the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the said Court in Writ Petition o. 72-R of 1964 passed on 25-11-1916 was set aside.
4. The learned Single Judge, while accepting the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, whereby he set aside the order of the learned Settlement Commissioner had, inter alia, found that the Settlement Commissioner, while upsetting the order of the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner who had dismissed the appeal of the respondents herein on the ground of limitation-had not at all adverted to this ground. Whereas this Court in Syed Azmat A.I v. The Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1964 SC 260) bad laid that the Settlement Commissioner had no jurisdiction to interfere in such matters unless he adverted to the finding of the Additional Settlement Commissioner on the point of limitation and could proceed on the merits only after it had upset it by passing a speaking order. The learned Judges of the Division Bench, while accepting the appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge, have not at all adverted to this aspect of the matter.
5. We, therefore, consider that this case requires further consideration.
6. Leave to appeal is, accordingly, granted.
7. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.
8. The appeal to be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to add further documents, if any and fixed at an early date.