' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This petition is directed against a judgment dated 11-11-2002 of the Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,1189 of 2001.
2. One Aroora was a Government tenant of land measuring 300 Kanals situated in Chak No,190/9- AL Tehsil and District Sahiwal who died in the year, 1933 leaving behind four sons, namely, Gullah, Laboo, Barkat and Fazal. After the death of Aroora it was only Gulla, Barkatand Fazal who got 100 Kanals each of the land held by the said Aroora while Laboo got nothing out of the inheritance of his father. On the death of Fazal the said 100 Kanals of land inherited by him devolved upon his wife, namely, Mst. Karam Bibi and then the said land reached the hands of her daughter Mst. Margrete.
The petitioners before us, namely, Irshad Masih etc. Are the legal representatives of said 100 Kanals of land at the hands of Laboo, Mst. Margrete filed a suit seeking a declaration that she was the Owner in possession of the said 100 Kanals of land inherited by her from her father namely, Fazal, through her mother Mst. Karam Bibi. This suit was dismissed through a judgment dated 20-1-1969 with an observation that she could enjoy the possession and the usufruct of the said land till her death whereafter the same was to be distributed under section 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. Mst. Margrete and Laboo filed separate appeals which were dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court through a judgment and decree dated 23-5-1969 which led both of them to the filing of second appeals before the High Court which were decided through a judgment dated 8-5-1993 with an observation that Mst. Margrete was entitled only to 75 Kanals of land during her life time instead of 100 Kanals and that the remaining 25 Kanals of land held by Mst.
Margrete was to go to Laboo who was also entitled to recover a further piece of 50 Kanals of land from the other two brothers, namely, Gulla and Barket. This judgment of the High Court was challenged before this Court through Civil Petitions Nos.506 and 258 of 1994 which petitions were dismissed through an order dated 18-6-1995.
3. In the meantime, it was alleged that the successors-in-interest ofMst. Margrete were forcibly dispossessed of the entire land held by her and the said successors-in-interest had then moved this Court through Criminal Petition No,4-L of 1998 seeking action under the Contempt Laws. This petition was disposed of by this Court on 14-4-1998 after the learned counsel for the petitioners in the said petition submitted that hewould like to move an application for execution of the above- mentioned judgment and decree and this Court permitted him to do so in accordance with law.
4. The execution petition was then filed on 19-6-1998 by the successors-in-interest of Mst. Margrete seeking execution of the above mentioned decree dated 20-1-1969 which petition was dismissed by the learned Executing Court through an order dated 16-11-1999 which order was then impugned before the District Court. A learned Additional District Judge who came to be seized of the matter decided the said revision petition through an order dated 25-1-2001 by remanding the matter to the learned Executing Court for framing of issues and for disposal of the matter after recording evidence of the parties. It is this revisional order of the learned Additional District Judge which wasquestioned before the High Court through the above mentioned Writ Petition No,1189 of 2001 and which resulted in the judgment which is now being impugned before us.
5. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the revisional order of the learned Additional District Judge essentially on the ground that after the death of Mst. Margrete in the year 1996 her successors were left with no locus standi to file the execution petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at some length and we have also examined the available record in the light of the submissions made by him.
7. The import of the revisional order which was set aside by the impugned order of the Lahore High Court was that issues were to be framed and evidence was to be examined to find out as to what was to devolve, if at all, on the four sons of Aroora and what was the extent to which the successors of all the said four sons were entitled in the land in question left behind by the said Aroora. The question whether such was not a just and proper order passed by the learned Additional District Judge to deal with the inheritance of Aroora requires consideration.
8. This petition is, therefore, allowed to examine the said question and others and leave is accordingly granted for the purpose.