1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The facts which form the background to this appeal are that the appellants are the successors-in-interest of Karam Din alias Baba Railu son of Karim Bakhsh, hereinafter called the plaintiff, who was allotted 15 acres of land situated in Chak No, 53/DB, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha in the year 1950. However, on 29-10-1952, the allottee obtained on exchange the suit land of which he duly took the possession and appears to have remained in possession of this area till 1956 but he was dispossessed in 1957 by the Administrator That Bhakkar Chairman Corporation (respondent No, 1 herein) by cancelling his allotment. The plaintiff challenged the cancellation by filing a suit on 24-5-1965 which he withdrew subsequently to correct a technical defect and filed a fresh suit on 21-12-1967.
2. ' In the course of the proceedings, in this suit, respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4, did not appear on different dates and hence were proceeded ex parte. However, respondent No,1 contested the suit and filed the written statement on 9-9-1968. On the pleadings of the parties, 8 issues were framed but at the trial respondent No,1 failed to produce any evidence as a result of which a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on 16-3-1972.
3. ' As the decree against respondent No,4 was ex parte he filed an application for setting it aside on becoming aware of it. This application was granted on 22-11-1973, the ex parte decree dated 16-3- 1972 passed against respondent No,4 was set aside and he was asked to submit his written statement in the main suit. The suit was tried de novo but on this occasion the plaintiff's suit was dismissed vide the learned trial Court's judgment and decree dated 12-12-1974.
4. ' Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court. But the appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mianwali on 5-7-1974 without going into the merits holding that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was taken away, with retrospective effect, to entertain suits against the orders passed by the Officers of the Thal Development Authority on account of the promulgation of Ordinance XIX of 1975 viz. The Thal Development (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance 1975. Hence, the trial Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
5. ' The plaintiff thereupon filed a Regular Second Appeal (No,693 of 1975) before the Lahore High Court. This too was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the said learned Court.
6. ' Leave was granted to consider whether the suit filed by the plaintiff in 1965 came within the mischief of the provisions of Ordinance XIX of 1975.
7. ' It appears, however, that this question was not at all raised before the learned Single Judge of the High Court. In fact, the learned Judge has clearly noted in his order that "the only submission made in support of this appeal is that the order setting aside the ex parte decree was effective only in respect of respondent No,3 (respondent No,4 herein) and that in so far as respondent No,1 was concerned, the said decree remained fully operative consequently when respondent No,1 did not prefer any appeal from the said decree it become final" and "that the Courts below illegally started the trial afresh and then (went ?) against the decree which had already attained finality against respondent No,1". The question is whether the appellants can now agitate the question that the suit of the plaintiffs filed before the promulgation of Ordinance XIX of 1975 could not be dismissed as it did not come within its mischief?.
8. ' Mr. A.R. Shaukat, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that as the question involved was one involving the competency of the Court to entertain the suit and this being a legal question it could be raised before this Court even for the first time, he should be permitted to do so. We agree that such a question can be agitated before this Court for the first time, but this can be done only with the permission of the Court. In the circumstances of this case we do not think this is a fit case in which such a permission should be granted.
9. ' The appellants stand dispossessed since 1956/1957. This action was challenged very tardily and the suit to challenge their dispossession filed some 8 years thereafter on 24-5-1965. This was also withdrawn for removing a technical defect and ultimately the proper suit in this connection was filed after another two years on 21-12-1967. Thus the proper steps to challenge the dispossession taking place sometimes in 1957 commenced more 10 years thereafter on 21-12-1967.
10. ' Now when the appellants' stand dispossessed since some 32 years we do not feel inclined nor does it appear to us appropriate to allow a point to be raised before us which was not taken before the High Court, especially when the acceptance of it would entail the case being remitted to the High Court for adjudication of the said point because the same has not been considered by it so far.
11. ' As for the question on which the High Court has decided the second appeal there is no doubt that its decision thereon is perfectly correct. The effect of accepting the prayer of respondent No,4 was that the decree passed on 16-3-1972 in favour of the appellants stood set aside as a whole and this necessitated an adjudication of the matter afresh.
12. ' The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed. But the parties are left to bear their own costs.