1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court has arisen out of an urban settlement matter.
2. As informed by the learned counsel for both the sides, after the High Court passed the order, dated 26-3-1991, which has been impugned in this appeal, another order by the Authorities concerned having been passed, the same is under challenge through an independent writ petition, which it is stated has yet to be heard and disposed of. In these circumstances, the learned counsel for the respondent rightly expressed the apprehension that any detailed statement and discussion of facts by this Court might prejudice the decision of the case pending in the High Court. Accordingly, we would refrain from making any serious comment on the facts .Of the case. For the same reason both the learned counsel agree now after consultation, arguments and discussion that an observation in the leave grant order may be affirmed by this Court, and the matter may be left at that.
3. ' The said observation in the leave grant order reads as follows: "Every Authority/Court/Tribunal is authorized to guard its proceedings against fraud/misrepresentation etc. As held in the Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v. Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and others PLD 1975 SC 331."
4. In the light of the afore-produced observation it was then noted for examination whether a reference/verification from the Custodian of the original record and a reference to such record can be held to be without lawful authority. Obviously the answer is in the negative.
5. ' With the aforerecorded observations, this appeal, as agreed, now stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
6. ' It is further clarified that nothing stated herein shall prejudice the case of either party on merits in so far as the other matter now pending in the High Court is concerned.