1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The dispute in this appeal relates to a garage, which was purchased by Hakim Ahmadullab, deceased, at an open auction in lieu of the auction price of Rs. 3,700, This auction was later confirmed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, and a P. T. O. Dated the 6th of December 1960, was duly issued in his favour. After the auction of this garage, which was mentioned at serial No. 314 in the auction list, an adjoining garage mentioned at serial No. 315 of the same list was put to auction and purchased by the appellant, Muhammad Abdullah for a sum of Rs. 8,100. The appellant then claimed that he had in fact purchased both the units auctioned at serial Nos. 314 and 315, and got a report from the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in his favour showing that the two units were in fact one. The appellant then moved the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner for cancellation of the auction of the garage in favour of Hakim Ahmadullah. The learned Additional Settlement Commissioner, refused to interfere, The appellant followed up the matter by filing a revision before the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore, who dismissed the same, observing that "from the admitted facts noted above, it will be seen that this garage, though not actually partitioned by a dividing wall was listed and auctioned separately as two properties bearing, two numbers and in occupation of two different persons. The parties purchased what is actually mentioned in the list as well as the bid sheet, Neither of them, therefore, purchased the portion not mentioned in his list or auction sheet. He cannot get: that portion in addition to his own". Dissatisfied with this order, the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court, which was also dismissed.
2. Leave to appeal was granted to the appellant by this Court on the 23rd of December 1964, to consider whether the garages in question formed one unit or two separate garages, and whether the auction was not vitiated on the ground that the parties were labouring under a mistake of fact in regard to the property that was being put to auction.
3. It is not, however, necessary to go into the merits of the appeal, as it has to be dismissed on a preliminary objection raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of this appeal. It is admitted that the respondent Hakim Ahmadullah had died on the 27th of May 1963, during the pendency of the appellant's revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner but his legal representatives were not brought on record. He filed the writ petition against the order of the Settlement Commissioner (No. 136/11 of 1964) against Hakim Ahmadullab, who was already dead.
4. The petition for leave to appeal in this Court was also directed against Hakim Ahmadullah, and an application for impleadment of his legal representatives was filed as late as the 5tb of September 1966, almost two years after the leave-granting order. It would thus appear that the entire proceedings taken in this case by the appellant from the stage of his revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner up to the admission of the appeal in this Court, and for a long time thereafter, were null and void having been pursued against a dead person without bringing the legal representatives of the deceased on record. This appeal must, therefore, be dismissed on this preliminary ground, with no order as to costs.