1. ' ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- The dispute in this case concerns transfer of property bearing No,IB/214/215 situated in Shandadpur which was occupied by Hote Khan, predecessor-in--interest of appellants. Since it was an available property not having been disposed of either under the schemes or in public auction, the Additional Settlement Commissioner ordered its transfer through negotiations on 9-3-1968 to Siraj Din, acting as general attorney of respondents 1 and 2, on payment of reserve price of Rs, 6,990 in cash. Siraj Din failed to pay the amount in cash, and on 14- 10-1969 the two respondents applied for grant of permission to make the payment by adjustment through their compensation books and the balance in cash. This request was rejected by the order, dated 28-10-1969 recorded on the face of the respondents' application and the transfer documents in their favour were cancelled, and the property was transferred to Hote Khan, the occupant, through negotiations on payment of full reserve price and rent arrears.
2. ' The two respondents challenged this order in a revision application presented on 26-11-1969, and on the same day, after hearing learned counsel appearing on their behalf, learned Settlement Commissioner rejected it for the reason that respondents were guilty of negligence as they had avoided payment of cash amount for more than 14 years. It may be mentioned at this stage that in paragraph 2 of the revision application, respondents asserted that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner by his letter No,DSC/NWS/SGR/69/8389, dated 27-10-1969 had allowed them time to pay the transfer price by 30-11-1969. They also enclosed a copy of the said letter with the revision application. However, it appears that this plea was not specifically raised before the learned Settlement Commissioner as the order, passed by him is silent on this aspect. Respondents then challenged these orders in a Constitutional Petition in Sind High Court which succeeded solely for the reason that since by the order, dated 27-10-1969 respondents were granted extension of time of 30 days to make the payment the transfer of the property in their favour could not have been cancelled on the following day of the issue of the said order i,e, 28-10-1969 or before the expiry of 30 days allowed to them to pay the transfer price of the property.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court to examine the plea raised on behalf of the appellants that the two respondents had no locus standi to challenge the transfer made in favour of Hote Khan as by the order, dated 9-3-1969 the Additional Settlement Commissioner had accepted the offer of Siraj Din for the purchase of the property, and the two respondents had merely applied for the adjustment of the price in their capacity as partners which could not give to them the colour of legal transferees in the absence of any document associating them with Siraj Din and hence the High Court erred in giving to them the relief to which they were not entitled to under the law.
4. ' We have gone through the departmental record produced by the learned Additional Advocate- General which contains the original application made by Siraj Din for the transfer of the property.
5. This application itself shows that Siraj Din had not applied for the transfer of the property in his own name, but he was only acting as general attorney of the two respondents, and, indeed, even the office notings, copy of which is borne on page 65 of the High Court record, is clear to the effect that the property was transferred to the two respondents and that Siraj Din was all along being treated as their attorney. The application made by the two respondents for extension of time for payment of adjustment of the transfer price was therefore, competent, and there is no substance in the plea on which leave to appeal was granted.
6. ' Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the letter, dated 27-10-1969 purportedly issued by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner for making the payment of the transfer price is a forged document, and reliance could not have been placed on it by the High Court, particularly when the question had not been dealt with specifically by the Settlement Commissioner. Since leave to appeal was granted only to examine the question of locus standi of the respondents, appellant is precluded from raising the aforesaid or any other plea.
7. ' For these reasons the appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs.