1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ. ---Leave to appeal has been sought, against the acceptance by the High Court, of respondents' Regular Second Appeal. It had arisen out of acceptance of the petitioner's appeal by the District Court as a result of which their suit against the respondent was decreed.
2. The opposite party; namely, respondent having filed a direct appeal (CA. 132 of 1989) against the same judgment which is impugned in this petition and is pending, we after hearing the learned counsel, consider this also a fit case for grant of leave to appeal, inter alia, to examine the conflict of legal provisions of two Statutes involved in this case. One: Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the other section 2 of the Mesne Profits and Improvements Act, 1855.
3. An objection having been raised from the respondent's side on the competency of the present petition it would also require examination: whether the petitioners should not have filed a direct appeal. If so, the further objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the said appeal would have to be treated as time-barred. Accordingly, this controversy and its effect will also have to be examined. Leave to appeal is granted.
4. Security Rs. 5,000.
5. The appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all those documents which shall be necessary for disposal thereof.
6. No alienation by either side nor the change of character of the property.