' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- Petitioner Bijar Khan seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 31-5-2002 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, Hyderabad, whereby R.A. No,2 of 1987 filed by him was dismissed.
2. Briefly, stated the facts leading to the filing of the instant petition, are that agricultural land measuring 19.28 acres situated in Deh Khani, Taluka Samaro, District Mirpur Khas, was purchased by the petitioner in an open auction from the Government on instalment basis. On 10-9-1969, the petitioner executed an agreement to sell of the above land in consideration of Rs,5,910 in favour of Ghaus Muhammad deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. At the time of agreement, the petitioner paid Rs,2,000 as earnest money and handed over the possession of the land to Ghaus Muhammad deceased-respondent. After the auction, the disputed land was confirmed in favour of the petitioner, said Ghaus Muhammad approached him for executing a regular sale-deed but the petitioner refused, therefore, Ghaus Muhammad, predecessor-in- interest of the respondents filed the suit for specific performance of the contract before the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Mirpur Khas. During the pendency of the suit, it was admitted by plaintiff/respondent Ghaus Muhammad that possession had been taken away from him by the petitioner, therefore, he filed an application under Order XL, rule 1, C.P.C. For appointment of Receiver which was rejected. The petitioner in his written statement, denied the assertions raised in the plaint and also denied the execution of any sale agreement and that the possession of the disputed land was never handed over. He also raised other legal objections. The trial Court decided Issues Nos.1 to 3 in favour of Ghaus Muhammad, predecessor-in-interest of respondents, whereas decided Issue No,4 in favour of the petitioner and dismissed the suit. The learned IInd Additional District Judge, Mirpur Khas, reversed the finding on Issue No,2 and allowed the appeal of the respondents.
3. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved, filed the above mentioned revision application before the High Court of Sindh, Hyderabad Circuit, Hyderabad, which was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
4. We have heard Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record for the respondents and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Mr. Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner had never entered into an agreement to sell with predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely, Ghaus Muhammad. He argued that in view of Condition No,8 for grant of lard, disputed land cannot be transferred as according to which, the grantee or his legal heirs, executors and assignees cannot lease, mortgage, gift and sale the land without permission in writing of the Deputy Commissioner. He mainly emphasized that all the Courts below have not dealt with this aspect of the matter as such, the question of transfer of land by way of agreement to sell does not arise.
6. When confronted with Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record appearing on behalf of the respondents, he too candidly admitted that the Courts below had not adverted to the above referred condition.
7. Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, the impact of violation of the Condition No,8 on the subject-matter.
8. Parties are directed to maintain status quo till the disposal of the appeal.
00.