S.A. NUSRAT, J.--By this appeal, brought by leave of this Court, the appellants have challenged the order of the High Court, dated 5-10-1982, whereby their Civil Revision Application was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Altaf Hussain, appellant No. 2, and Ch. Fazal Hussain, respondent No. 1, started a partnership business vide a partnership deed, dated 9-4-1974 styled as "Fazal Hussain and Company". Subsequently by another partnership deed, dated 18-11-1976 two more partners, namely, Barkat Ali appellant and Baqar Hussain respondent were admitted to partnership. On 19-2-1978 Fazal Hussain brought a suit against his co-partners for dissolution of partnership and rendition of account. By consent of the counsel for the parties only Issue No. 2, viz "whether the prospecting licence for coal granted to Fazal Hussain and Company over an area of 320 acres of land in Jhelum District was exclusively allotted to the plaintiff," was contested and the rest of the issues were dropped. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jhelum decided the said issue in favour of the plaintiff and held that "licence for Coal Mining was issued in the name of plaintiff in his individual capacity and he had included the defendants in his firm and the firm had nothing to do with the licence." On such premises, a preliminary decree for rendition of account and dissolution of partnership was passed by the trial Judge.
3. The appellants preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree so passed challenging the decision on the aforesaid sole issue in the suit. The question of dissolution of partnership was not disputed. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jhelum and the appellants then filed a revision application in the Lahore High Court. The learned Judge in the High Court dismissed the revision application by the judgment, dated 5-10-1982 on the short ground that since the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court was not being assailed by the appellants was not open to them to challenge the finding on issue No. 2.
4. Leave to appeal was granted to examine the contention raise on behalf of the appellants that in point of fact the appellants had challenged the judgment and preliminary decree and had prayed that the said decree be modified to the extent that it rejected the appellants' claim that the prospecting licence belonged to all the partners of the firm. The dispute before the learned first appellate Court and the High Court centred round the above-mentioned solitary issue save to the extent of the finding recorded against the appellants that the licence did not endure to the benefit of all the partners and therefore, nothing more was to be challenged.
5. Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari, learned counsel for the respondents having been referred to the memos of Appeal and Revision and the impugned judgment as also the nature of the contest in the impugned proceedings, conceded, and rightly so, that the finding of the learned High Court was based on some misconception and, therefore, could not be sustained. Both the counsel, in the circumstances, agreed to the proposition that the impugned order of the learned High Court be set aside and the case remitted to the High Court for the disposal of the revision application.
6. In the circumstances, by consent of the parties the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the High Court for fresh decision of the revision application on merits without prejudice to the right of the parties to raise such contentions as may be available to them in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.