' MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---The petitioners' legal heirs of Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal seek leave for appeal against the judgment dated 25-10-1994 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby the judgments of the Civil Judge Ist Class, Talagang and Additional District Judge, Chakwal,. Dated 15-4-1987 and 26-5-1990 respectively were set aside and the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs was decreed.
2. It was case of the respondents that Fazal Elahi husband of Mst. Niaz Begum, respondent No,1, and father of Karamat Hussain, Shaukat Hussain, Imtiaz Hussain, Mst. Tasleem Zohra and Mst. Asma Bibi, respondent Nos.2 to 6, in open auction purchased the plot in dispute. The property was rented out to Aitbar Khan and his son Iftikhar Khan. After death of Aitbar Khan the tenant left this plot and it remained vacant. The respondents, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, claim that Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal trespassed into the plot and started timber business there. They refused to pay rent also. The respondents filed suit for ejectment of Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal before the Court of the Civil Judge 1st Class, Talagang. They contested the suit. On pleadings of the parties seven issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge. The parties led evidence in support of their claims. The learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on 15-4-1987. The respondents filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chakwal. On 26-5-1990 the appeal of the respondents was dismissed. The respondents filed Civil Revision Petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. On 25-10-1994 the High Court accepted the revision petition of the respondents, set aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Civil Judge, Talagang and Additional District Judge, Chakwal and decreed the suit of the respondents. It may be observed that during pendency of the matters Waris Khan and Muhammad Iqbal have expired. Both of them are being represented by their legal heirs of the petitioners who have challenged the above said judgment of the High Court before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there were concurrent findings of the facts by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Talagang and Additional District Judge, Chakwal. The Courts below had exercised its jurisdiction vested on it by the law and had not acted illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction, hence, the judgment of the High Court is erroneous and the High Court was not justified in disturbing the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require consideration of this Court. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.
4. Status quo be maintained till the disposal of appeal.