' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Respondent No,1 brought a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of an agreement of sale allegedly executed by respondents 2 to 6 in her favour. Later, she filed another suit for specific performance of the said agreement and then withdrew the suit for permanent injunction. A question arose before the trial Court whether the second suit was competent and not hit by the provision of Rule 2 of Order II, Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court held that the suit was not maintainable and rejected the plaint. Respondent No,1 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge from the order of the trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings. The petitioners who had purchased the property from the respondents Nos.2 to 6 filed a revision petition before the High Court but it was dismissed. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. In support of this petition it is contended that the view taken by the High Court and the learned Additional District Judge is contrary to the judgment of this Court in Aziz Ahmad and others v. Mst.
Hajran Bibi and others (1987 SC MR 527). This contention requires examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs,5,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The proceedings in the trial Court are stayed in the meanwhile. Status quo with regard to possession to be maintained during the pendency of this appeal.