' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Peshawar High Court in Civil Revisions Nos.127 and 128 of 1993 has raised the following contentions:--
(1) That the learned Judge in chambers could not non-suit the plaintiffs in the above cases on the sole ground that the petitioners having failed to ask for relief of possession as a consequential relief, were not entitled to a declaratory decree when, in fact, petitioners had specifically pleaded in suits that they were the owner in possession of the land and no adverse finding was recorded by the two Courts below while decreeing the suits.
(2) It is also contended that, in any case, the omission on the part of petitioners to ask for relief of possession was a technical error and in view of the evidence in the case, the petitioners could be allowed the relief of possession on the basis of admitted facts in the case through amendment of the plaint even at the stage while the learned Judge was considering the revision application especially in the circumstances of the case when no specific objection was raised before the Trial Court or before the first Appellate Court that the suits as framed were not maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. The above contentions raised by the learned counsel require further examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.