RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.---This order will dispose of two petitions, namely, C. P. L. As. 'Nos. 386-R/1988 and 387-R/1988 filed by Ghulam Haider, petitioner, and two petitions, namely, C.P.LAs. Nos. 405- R/1988 and 406-R/1988 filed by Muhammad Ismail and his legal heirs, petitioners, all seeking leave to appeal against the four separate judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 21st June, 1988.
2.On 18th March, 1967, one Muhammad sold to Ghulam Haider petitioner/vendee 135 kanals and 13 marlas of land for Rs.6,000' by Mutation No.140 and 30 kanals and 9 marlas of land for Rs.13,500 vide Mutation No.141: On 19th February, 1968, the said Ghulam Haider petitioner vendee Sold to 0 Muhammad, Muhammad Sadiq and Father Khan 1/3rd area out of 135 kanals ad 13 marlas purchased under Mutation No.140 for Rs.2,000 vide Mutation No.l10 and 1/3rd area out of 30 kanals and 9 marlas purchased under Mutation No. 141 for Rs.4,500 vide Mutation No.183.
3. Muhammad Ismail petitioner/pre-emptor (now represented by his legal heirs) filed two suits against Ghulam Haider original vendee challenking the No sales made in his favour on 18th March, 1967. The subsequent vendees were also impleaded as defendants in the two suits. Both these suits were decreed in to favour on 18th December, 1974, in respect of 2/3rd area of the lands Which weft purchased by him. Both the pre-emptors and the first vendee filed appeals again the two decisions of the trial Court, which all were dismissed on 14th June, 10 Both the pre-emptors and first vendee filed second appeals against both these to decisions of the appellate Court, which were all dismissed by the High Court to 21st June, 1988.
4. On behalf of the legal heirs of the two pre-emptors it is submitted tht1 the view of the High Court that no decree for the balance of 1/3rd area of the two parcels of lands sold to Ghulam Haider original vendee could be passed, before 31st July, 1986, the preemptors had not secured decrees in that behalf, not legally correct. It is submitted that since the suits had been filed to, the toto areas of the two parcels of land sold to the original vendee, part of which had been allowed and part of which had been disallowed, the pre-emptors could seek restoration of these parts which had been disallowed.
5. The submissions made by learned counsel for the legal heirs of the deceased pre-emptors require consideration. Leave is, therefore, granted in petitions C.P.LAs. Nos.405-R/1988 and 406- R/1988. The petitioners shat furnsih security in the sum of Rs.2,500 in respect of each case. Both these appeal' shall be heard on the basis of present records. The parties are at liberty to file further documents as they consider fit and proper for the full and final disposal of the appeals.
6. The learned counsel appearing for Ghulam Haider original vended whilst supporting the arguments of the learned counsel for the pre-emptors has not added anything to support his own case. In these circumstances, the two petitions C.P.L.A. Nos.386-R/1988 and 387-R/1988 are dismissed. However, the learned counsel appearing in these petitions is requested to appear at the time of hearing of the appeals preferred by the pre-emptors, to assist this Court.