' ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of a learned Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court, dated 12-1-1987.
2. The facts as given in the petition are that Noor Dad Khan (respondent No,2) sold the land in dispute to one Rabin Dad Khan through a sale-deed No,31 on 4-6-1952. The petitioners' predecessor-in-interest succeeded in obtaining the possession of the suit property through a pre- emption suit on 9-9-1952 against the payment of a consideration of Rs, 3,500. The decree was passed by the then Shariat Court which was later on confirmed by the Musheer of Swat State. The petitioners are in enjoyment of the suit property since then.
3. On the merger of the Swat State, one Salar Muhammad, brother-in-law of respondent No,1, during the Settlement claimed the suit property to be the property of respondent No,1 but this claim was turned down by the Tehsildar Settlement in 1977. Respondent No,1 who was residing in Thailand since 50 years came to Pakistan and instituted a declaratory suit against the petitioners on 5-9- 1977 under PATA Regulation of 1975 before the Deputy Commissioner. The suit was resisted by the petitioners on a number of grounds and the plea of limitation was also raised. The trial Court did not agree with the question of bar of limitation raised by the petitioners vide its order dated 29-3- 1978. The petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No, 4 which was accepted on 2-8-1978 and the suit filed by respondent No,1 was held as barred by time. The revision filed by the said respondent before the Secretary Home to the Government of N.-W.F.P. Was dismissed on 16-3-1983 but he, however, succeeded in obtaining a favourable order from the High Court through a Constitutional petition.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He vehemently contended that the two authorities acting under the PATA Regulation after considering the case of the parties came to the conclusion that the suit filed by respondent No,1 was barred by time. The High Court has, therefore acted in excess of its jurisdiction by holding the suit to be within time.
5. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel in the light of the record we think that the question whether the suit filed by respondent No,1 was barred by time needs consideration. We, therefore, grant leave in the matter. Security Rs,5,000. The appeal shall be heard on the present record with premission to the parties to file additional documents, if any. The operation of the order of the High Court is hereby suspended and it is directed that the appeal may be heard at an early date.
' Leave to .