1. ' NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.---The relevant facts briefly are that respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Mst. Sawan Mai and Mst. Reham Elahi) filed a suit to seek a declaration that they were owners in possession of the land in dispute and that the mutation attested on 5-4-1968 showing the appellants namely Muhammad Yar son of Allah Ditta, Muhammad Riaz son of Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Iqbal son of Ghulam Muhammad and respondents Nos.3 to 8 as the owners thereof was illegal and ineffective in so far as their rights were concerned. The suit was decreed by the trial Court on the basis of an oath administered on Holy Qur'an to Mst. Sawan Mai and Mst. Reham Elahi (respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein). Respondents Nos.3 to 8 filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge stating that they were not bound by the oath taken by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and as such the decree passed by the trial Court was unsustainable. However, the appellants herein were not parties to the appeal and accepted the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the decree as a whole and remanded the suit to the trial Court for a fresh decision according to law.
2. Feeling aggrieved Mst. Sawan Mai and Mst. Reham Elahi (respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein) filed a revision petition in the High Court from the judgment of the Additional District Judge. A learned Single Judge partly accepted the revision petition, holding that as the appellants herein being parties to the offer of oath made to respondents Nos.1 and 2 the first appellate Court should not have set aside the decree in so far as they were concerned, especially when the shares of the said appellants in the land in suit were severable from that of respondents Nos3 to 8. The appellants have filed this appeal from the judgment of the High Court.
3. We do not find any force in this appeal. The appellants had accepted the decree of the learned trial Court and not agitated against it. The High Court was quite right in setting aside the decree of the learned Additional District Judge whereby he set aside the decree in so far as they were concerned which was passed against them alongwith respondents Nos.3 to 8. In fact, as they had accepted the decree of the learned trial Court and not agitated against it by filing an appeal they did not have any locus standi to file the present appeal.
4. ' The order of the High Court is just, proper and legal. It does not require any interference.
5. ' Dismissed. No costs.