' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Petitioners have sought leave to appeal against judgment dated 11-6- 1996, passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissing their Regular Second Appeal No,65 of 1966 resulting in maintaining the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 30-6-1965 which, in its turn, had the effect of reversing the finding of the trial Court on Issue No,5 and dismissing their suit for declaration. Issue No,5 reads thus: "5. Is the partition ultra vires and illegal? If so on what ground and with what effect? OPP. "
2. Dr. A. Basit, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition, has taken us through the available material as also Part III thereof being an application under Order XXXIII, Rules 5 and 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, for permission to place certain documents on the record, to contend; that the learned trial Court had rightly decreed petitioners' suit for declaration (not injunction) on 10-10-1963; that the judgment and decree of the trial Court was reversed by First Appellate Court illegally opining that they were not entitled to be heard in the partition proceedings before the A.C-I, Hafizabad and that even if they had filed an application before him to join the proceedings, the same would not have been favourably disposed of by the said A .C.-I and that the learned Judge in Chambers did not attend to the provisions contained in sections 111 and 113 of the then Punjab Land Revenue Act (No, XVII of 1887).
3. Learned counsel has also read out order dated 10-8-1957 passed by A.C.-I to the effect that in relation to persons similarly placed as the petitioners i.e, those who had been shown in Khana Kasht in 24 Khatas their respective holdings will be reflected in Naqsha Alaf and submits that preparation of said Naqsha Alaf was also gone ahead with the result that the petitioners should have been allowed to retain all that they had purchased from their predecessor-in-interest namely Sultan Ahmed. As A.C.-I had directed the partition proceedings to confine themselves to what will be left after separation of 24 Khatas in terms of Naqsha Alaf copy whereof is available at page 6 of Part III, the reduction in petitioners' holdings by about one-half of the disputed land could not be countenanced, as done by the first Appellate Court as also the High Court.
4. Clause (b) of section 113 was also pressed into service to contend that the learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the petitioners by holding that void orders passed by the Revenue Authorities/A.C.-I are liable to challenge under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. It was also contended by Dr. A. Basit that the decision of petitioners' Regular Second Appeal by the learned Judge in Chambers on, inter alia, the principle of abatement of suit, cannot be sustained.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the respondents/caveators, we are inclined to grant leave to consider the questions raised by Dr. A. Basit, as detailed in paras. 3, 4 and 5 above. Accordingly, leave is granted and it is directed that until the hearing of the appeal, which may be expedited, the interim relief already granted to the petitioners with regard to maintaining their possession over the suit land shall continue, meantime.