1. ' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---We have heard learned counsel for the parties at, length.
2. However, during arguments when we confronted learned counsel for the respondents with the question that how the suit filed by the respondents was competent without impleading the District Forest Officer because record reveals that the property in dispute vests in the Forest Department. It is also pointed out to the learned counsel that in view of judgment of this Court in H.M. Saya & Co., Karachi v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd., Karachi and others (PLD 1969 SC 65) as to how the appeal filed by Forest Officer before the District Judge was not competent and what illegality or irregularity was committed by the learned District Judge in entertaining/allowing the appeal filed in view of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment referred above and for such circumstances whether there was any occasion for the learned High Court to exercise jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. He could not answer satisfactorily and stated that as the respondents are in possession of the properties and they are earning their breads from it therefore, permission be granted to them to withdraw the suit so they may file a fresh suit against the Forest Officer and other necessary parties for the redressal of their grievance. Learned Advocate-General expressed no-objection if the request so made on behalf of the respondents is allowed. Thus in view of the request so made by the respondents counsel impugned orders operating against the appellants as well as Forest Department are set aside consequently the plaint filed by the respondent is allowed to be withdrawn and permission is also granted to them to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action save in accordance with law before the Court having jurisdiction subject to payment of Rs,1,000 in each case.
3. ' No order as to costs.