' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought in these two petitions against the judgment of the High Court dated 8-6-1991 and dated 9-12-1990.
2. The objection raised before the. Courts below was that the application for execution of the decree filed by the decree-holder was barred by time. This objection of the petitioner did not prevail with the Courts.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of judgment of this Court in Abdul Qayyum v. Ali Asghar Shah 1992 SCMR 241 the point has been decided against the petitioner. As such, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused in Civil Petition No,183 of 1991.
4. In Civil Petition No,48 of 1991, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner produced evidence that he has made improvement on the land and that evidence has not been controverted by the respondent. The evidence of the petitioner remained unrebutted. The Courts below have misread the evidence on this score and have not granted the compensation.
5. Leave to appeal is granted in Civil Petition No,48 of 1991 to consider whether the petitioner is entitled to costs of improvement.
The execution proceedings are stayed. No security. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.