1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan dated 17-10-1989, whereby, R.S.A. No, 128 of 1983 of the respondents was accepted. The respondents purchased the land in dispute from one Faiz Muhammad son of Allah Din for a sale consideration of Rs,50,000 vide mutation No,3052 attested on 30-5-1969. The petitioner on the basis of co-sharer and owner in the estate claimed his superior rights and pre-empted the said sale before the learned Civil Judge 1st Class Leiah. During the pendency of the suit Faiz Muhammad vendor brought a declaratory suit claiming that the sale in favour of the vendees being violative of the M.L.R.64, was thus void. A consent decree was passed and under such circumstances Faiz Muhammad vendor was made a party to the suit. On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge framed contesting issues and after recording the evidence, decreed the suit of the petitioner in his favour on 13-1-1982. Appeal and application for additional evidence of the vendees/respondents before the District Court were both dismissed on 29-6-1983. Regular Second Appeal of the respondents before the High Court was allowed on 17-10- 1989 and their case was remanded to the Addl. District Judge for disposal on its merits. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as the sale in favour of the vendees/respondents was on their consent declared void, hence, they have left no interest in the suit land and thus losing their interest have no right to file an appeal before the District Judge against the decree passed in favour of the petitioner. Under the circumstances the vendor being a necessary party and having interest in the disputed property was impleaded as defendant in the suit but the respondents failed to implead him as respondent in appeal against the decree passed in the pre-emption suit, thus the appeal, not being properly constituted, was rightly dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge. The learned Single Judge of the High Court while ignoring this aspect of the case has wrongly allowed the second appeal. We, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, feel satisfied that the contention raised by him makes the case arguable which requires examination of this Court. Leave to appeal, accordingly, is granted.
2. Proceeding before the trial Court is stayed during the pendency of this appeal.
3. Security Rs,5,000.
4. Appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any.