1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by a pre-emrtcr/plaintiff; against the dismissal by the High Court, of his writ petition.
2. ' The petitioner's pre-emption suit was decreed by the Collector on the ground/qualification that he was a tenant. It was so decreed to the extent of 40 kanals 19 marlas only out of 64 kanals 11 marlas.
3. The decree was passed on 26-10-1982. The Additional Commissioner accepted the appeal of the respondents' side and the suit was dismissed on 19-3-1985. The petitioner's revision before the Member, Board of Revenue and the writ petition before the High Court having been dismissed he has now sought leave to appeal.
4. ' While dismissing the writ petition the High Court observed as follows:- "However, this contention is not acceptable for the simple reason that the petitioner had not been granted any decree whereby the petitioner could claim that the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court (in Said Kamal's case) was not applicable to his case."
5. ' Learned counsel contended that the afore-noted finding by the High Court is based on an error in appreciating the facts of the case and thus based on misreading.
6. ' Prima facie, the argument of the learned counsel has force. It is mentioned in the impugned judgment itself that "by his judgment dated 26-10-1982, (the Collector) decreed the suit of the petitioner to the extent of 40 kanals 19 marlas and dismissed it with regard to area measuring 23 kanals 12 marlas."
7. Thus, prima facie, as held in the case of Sardar Ah and others v. Muhammad Ali and others (PLD 1988 SC 287) the petitioner was entitled to urge for and seek restoration of decree passed before 1- 7-1986 to the extent of 40 Kanals marlas. That being so, it is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
8. ' Order accordingly. Security Rs, 5000.
9. ' The appeal shall he prepared on present record with direction to file all essential documents.