' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.---This order will cover both the abovementined petitions as they seek leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Lahore High Court whereby petitioners' appeal (R.S.A. No,29 of 1995) and their Civil Revision No,1392 of 1995 have been dismissed.
2. Muhammad Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners had appointed Rehmat Ali as his attorney on 19-2-1986. The said attorney is stated to have executed two sale agreements dated 12-3-1990, one in respect of an area measuring 6 Marlas and the other for 1 Kanal and 13 Marlas of land belonging to Muhammad Hussain in favour of his (attorney's) brother Lal Din, respondent No,1 . Muhammad Hussain died on 6-6-1991. After a year or so thereafter, Lal Din brought two suits against the present petitioners, the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Hussain for specific performance of the aforementioned agreements. Suits were dismissed by the trial Court. Appeals filed by the respondent/plaintiff were allowed by the learned District Judge who decreed the suits. Petitioners preferred second appeal (R.S.A. No,29 of 1995) in respect of 6 Marlas of land and a revision petition (C.R. No,1392 of 1995) relating to the land measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas which as stated above have been dismissed by a learned Judge in the High Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the sale agreements were fake documents which though purported to have been executed on 12-3-1990 did not see the light of the day during the life time of Muhammad Hussian, the owner of the suit land and it was more than a year after his death that the respondent brought the suits for the specific performance of the agreements in question. It is further A contended by the learned counsel that the agreements in question were not duly proved as the plaintiff/respondent produced the scribe of the documents and only one of the marginal witnesses whereas for their proof, two marginal witnesses ought to have been produced as provided in Article 17 of Qanun-eShahadat.
4. Contentions need consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted in both the cases.
' Stay order issued in Chambers on 3-9-1996 shall continue in force pending the hearing of the appeals.