1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, .1.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal of their civil revision by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, arising out of a declaratory suit for title and confirmation of possession of the disputed land, filed by the respondent No,
1. The learned trial Judge after framing the issues on the pleadings of the parties, adjourned the proceedings for evidence. Nazar Hussain etc. Plaintiffs/respondents and defendants/petitioners 1-3 concluded their evidence while defendants 4-11 requested for time to produce some documentry evidence. The learned Trial Judge observed that the documents in question would be surprise for the other party, declined to adjourn and closed the evidence vide his order dated 7-9-1986. Appeal of the petitioners against this order was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 21-1-1988. Revision petition of the petitioners before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench was also dismissed on 6- 3-1988. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that for exercise of jurisdiction under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the C.P.C., to examine the nature of documents is a must. He laid emphasis that there is ample law on the point that if documents are public documents of unimpeachable authenticity, its late production is not a ground under Order XIII, Rule 2 of the C.P.C. He also contended that the learned High Court failed to consider that notice under Order XLIII, Rule 3 of the CPC was not required to be sent to the other party in appeals which did not fall under Order XLIII, CPC.
3. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we think that the contentions raised involve points of law which require consideration of this Court. The petition is converted into appeal.
4. Security for costs in the sum of Rs,5,(0). Appeal he fixed on the present record for final hearing in June, 1989. No stay of proceedings but final judgment shall not be announced until the final disposal of the appeal.