' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 4th of November, 1999 whereby petitioner's Intra-Court appeal was dismissed being barred by proviso to section 3(ii) of the Law Reforms Ordinance of 1972. Apart from this, reference was also made to the earlier consent decree whereby the petitioners were directed to deposit an amount of Rs,350 failing which the suit earlier filed by the respondent would be deemed to have been decreed.
2.The learned counsel has argued that the petitioner's plea for redemption of mortgaged property was accepted by the learned Collector through his order dated 16th of February, 1991 and subsequent thereto all proceedings were not maintainable as the said order was conclusive and final. He has further stated that the petitioner's right of redemption being equitable can be exercised any time within the period of 60 years prescribed by law. The dismissal or acceptance of one suit would not preclude his right, inter alias to agitate the matter afresh during the aforesaid period. Reliance in this regard has been placed upon the, following judgments:-
(i) Malik Aman and 3 others v. Fida Muhammad and 5 others PLD 1994 SC 334;
(ii) Samar Gul v. Central Government and others PLD 1986 SC 35;
(iii) Babu Ahmad Din v. Ch. Muhammad Din PLD 1954. Lahore 341;
(iv) Vadilal Chhaganlal Soni and others v. Gokaldas Mansukh and others AIR 1953 Bombay 408;
(v) Muhammad Sher Khan v. Raja Seth Swami Dayal AIR 1922 PC 17; and
(vi) Parsotim Thakur and others v. Lal, Mohar Thakur- and others AIR 1931 PC 143.
3. We grant leave so as to give the authoritative pronouncement respecting the pleas raised by the petitioners.