' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.---Respondent/tenant filed Suit No, 2432/82, in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, for declaration that he is tenant of shops Nos.3 and 4 owned by petitioner/landlord and had been forcibly disposed from shop No,4 on 15-4-1982 and his articles were thrown out on the street. Tenant as plaintiff in the suit, prayed that he may be declared tenant of shop No,4 and be handed over possession thereof and also claimed damages of Rs,22,000. In the written statement, stand was taken that tenant himself handed over possession of shop No,4 on 15-4-1982 and subsequently changed his mind on being exhorted by other tenants and demanded pugree and also filed criminal case under section 448, Cr.P.C. Pleas were also taken in the written statement that suit was not maintainable under sections 44 and 52 of the Specific Relief Act and under Order II, rule 2 and section 11 of C.P.C. It was mentioned in the written statement that plaintiff/tenant had already filed Suit No, 1595/82, seeking declaration in respect of tenancy of shop No,3 and on the statement of defendant/landlord, admitting claim of tenant, order was passed on 28-4-1982, that tenant will not be ejected from shop No,3 except in due course of law.
2. Keeping in view pleadings of the parties, as many as five issues were framed pertaining to the frame of suit, tenancy of shops Nos.3 and 4, dispossession from shop No,4 and damages of Rs,22,000 as claimed by the plaintiff. Evidence was recorded and ultimately suit was dismissed on merits. Tenant filed Civil Appeal No, 207/85, which was allowed vide judgment dated 8-9-1987, passed by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Karachi East, to the extent that appellant/tenant was dispossessed from shop No,4 and is entitled to recover possession thereof. Landlord filed Civil Revision No, 251/87 in the High Court of Sindh, which has been dismissed on merits.
3. Landlord, who is defendant in the suit, has filed petition for leave to appeal and it is submitted on his behalf firstly, that in the Courts below fmdings are not concurrent inasmuch as that suit was dismissed and appeal has been partly allowed and revision has been dismissed. Secondly, that revisional Court has dealt with in detail questions, whether section 9 of Specific Relief Act was attracted to the facts of the suit as wrongly assumed by the trial Court and, whether suit was barred under Order 11, Rule 2, C.P.C. For the reasons that plaintiff in the earlier Suit No, 1595/82, did not raise such pleas or made such claims as in the instant suit. In this context, it is further submitted that the revisional Court has not dealt with issues separately as framed in the suit.
Thirdly, it is submitted that evidence on the record produced by the parties has been misread and in its light, findings have not been given by the revisional Court on all issues which were pressed, as is evident from memorandum of revision, which is on the record.
' In the light of contentions raised and stated above, leave is granted to reappraise the evidence.
Security Rs,2,000. Paper book may be prepared on the record available and it is open to the parties to include documents which are considered necessary. Interim stay granted earlier shall continue till the disposal of the appeal on the same terms and conditions.