SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners who are plaintiffs/pre---emports, seek leave, to appeal against the .Judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4-7-19.59 whereby a Revision Petition was allowed, the judgment of the first appellate Court reversed and the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed.
2. The sale of the suit property had taken place for a sum of Rs.1,25,000. The petitioners sought to pre-empt the sale and failed in the trial Court but succeeded in the first appellate Court, mainly for the reason that their superior right of pre-emption was held established and the claim of the respondents to be the cultivating tenants to possession of the property was rejected on the ground of forgeries in the record. This finding of forgery and interpolation to the record and the respondents being not the tenants of the property, was reversed by the impugned judgment. The three reasons giver, for reversing the finding of fact are, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, misconceived. Without examining the original record and without adverting to the primary evidence of those who made the entries, the learned Judge in the High Court believed the correctness of the record. This could not be the approach to the case where forgery and interpolation in the record was alleged. It was further contended that there was no final order passed by the Collector with regard to the correctness of the Revenue Record, because the proceedings were not pursued by stating that the same matter was under examination in the Civil Court. Therefore, neither the exclusiveness of the determination by the Collector nor its finality could be recognized. The Rules on the subject were not examined for holding that the entries in the Khasra Girdawari were made in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The learned counsel also made it clear that as the value of the subject-- matter of the suit was far in excess of Rs.50,000, a direct appeal was filed but he was asked to file a petition for leave to appeal and in compliance with that direction a Petition for leave to appeal was filed. At the moment, we are not going in depth of the case as we find that this is a matter which requires fuller examination and an authoritative pronouncement by the Court.
3. Leave to appeal is therefore, granted. The property in dispute shall not be alienated, nor trees cut or the property damaged in any manner pending disposal of the case. Security shall be in the sum of Rs.2,500.