1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 11-9-2001 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby R.S.A. No,14 of 1985 filed by the petitioners was dismissed maintaining the concurrent findings of the. Courts below.
2. ' The facts briefly narrated are that respondent No,1, Mian Muhammad Akram, being collateral of the vendor, filed a suit for possession through pre-emption against Hashmat Ali, petitioner No,2, and seven others respecting the land measuring 109 Kanals, 15 Marais situated in Mauza Jaufer Shah, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar on 29-1-1977. The said suit was contested by the petitioners. Out of the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. The learned Civil Judge, Chishtian, vide his judgment, dated 24-7-1984 decreed the suit subject to payment of Rs,4646,753.37 minus 1/5th amount of Zar-e-Panjum already deposited.
3. ' An appeal was filed assailing the above judgment of the trial Court by all the vendees who were defendants in the aforesaid suit through Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh as special attorney. The said special attorney and Sh. Muhammad Sharif Zafar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, made a statement before the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar, that they had no objection in maintaining the pre-emption decree earlier passed by the learned Civil Judge if the pre-emption money was enhanced to Rs,48,000. In view of this conceding statement, the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal enhancing the preemption money to Rs,48,000 through his judgment, dated 17-12-1983.
4. ' R.S.A. No,15 of 1985 was preferred by the present three petitioners against the above judgment of the First Appellate Court while five others did not challenge the same. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment, dated 11-9-2001 dismissed the R.S.A. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh, special attorney had no authority to make a statement before the First Appellate Court and secondly Allah pitta, petitioner No,1, was minor at the time of filing of the suit and his guardian-adlitem was not appointed.
6. ' We have considered the contentions raised above and have gone through the entire material placed on record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is self-defeating. If it is held that Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh, special attorney, had no authority, then how the appeal would be competent before the First Appellant Court on behalf of the petitioners. It is reflected from the documents that the appeal before the First Appellate Forum was filed by the said attorney through Sh. Muhammad Sharif Zafar, Advocate. It is to be appreciated that none of the petitioners including Muhammad Bakhsh through whom Allah Ditta minor filed appeal signed the memo. Of appeal. It was signed on behalf of all by the special attorney. It was he who conducted the first appeal before the First Appellate Court. In this background it cannot be stated that the said special attorney had no authority to make the statement. Even otherwise, if the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, then in that eventuality, there being no competent appeal against the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, dated 24-7-1984, the same would attain finality.
7. ' The other argument that petitioner No,1 was minor and in the absence of appointment of guardian-ad-litem the proceedings against him would be ineffective, is also of no avail. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has dealt this issue in the following terms:-- "On the second ground of minority of Allah Ditta, suffice it to say that after the passing of the judgment and decree, dated 24-7-1984 by the learned Trial Court, all the vendees including Allah.
8. Ditta son of Muhammad Bakhsh had filed an appeal. Although, Allah Ditta was described as a minor and an appeal was filed through his real father who was his natural guardian, the memo of appeal was not even signed by the said Muhammad Bakhsh. In fact, all the appellants had filed an appeal through Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh described as their attorney. After having owned the filing of the said appeal even Allah Ditta could not challenge the authority of the said attorney in the circumstances of the case. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent on Jaffar Abbas's case (PLD 1991 SC 1131) is apt and proper."
9. ' Furthermore, we have noticed that the suit was filed against the petitioners and five others who were made defendants in the suit by the respondents for possession through pre-emption. After the passage of decree in favour of the pre-emptors all the eight defendants filed their appeal through Hafiz Ahmad Bakhsh, special attorney, before the First Appellate Court. However, before this Court, only three petitioners/ defendants have come and others have not raised a single finger against the compromise arrived at before the learned First Appellate Court.
10. Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.