1 976 S C: M R 116 (PLP)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.‑This is an application for the review of an order of this Court, passed in Civil Petition No. 121 4 1974. Learned counsel contends that the main ground, oil which the petition was dismissed, was that Chaubara in dispute was treated as a strop, since the property in dispute was situated in predominently commercial area, namely, Jhang Bazar, Lyallpur." Learned counsel contends that this fact has been taken front the judgment of the High Court, but the learned Judge in the High Court fell in to an error and was under a misconception in holding that the premises were situated in a predominently commercial area. No Settlement Authority has held to that effect. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the various orders of the Settlement Authorities to show that there is no finding of arty authority to the effect that the area was a predominently commercial area, but on perusal of the orders of the Settlement Authorities, eve are satisfied that tyre main contention of the other side was that the area was a predominently a commercial area and, therefore, the Chaubara, situated over the shop could treated as a part of the shop. This contention was not contradicted any one, a is there say finding by any authority that the area was not a predominently commercial area In fact, it is admitted that the premises is situated in Jhang Bazar, Lyallpur. Learned counsel also tried to contend that this Court had omitted to notice that the present petitioner was tire senior allottee in respect of the: residential portion and that the Chaubara was connected to the residential portion. In the absence of the Chaubara, the petitioner would not to make further utilization of the roof of his residential portion. "We have re‑examined the order of the Settlement Commissioner and we find that he has cot‑rte to the conclusion that the Chaubara was not a part of the residential portion and that the petitioner having been transferred the residential portion got a house, to which alone he was entitled under the law, he could not, therefore, claim the Chaubara unless he could establish that it was a part of the residential portion transferred to him. The Settlement Commissioner has come to a finding of fact that the Chaubara was not a part of the residential portion. He has relied for this purpose on a registered deed of sale, but learned counsel contends that since the mutation in respect of the sale was not attested, the deed is of no value. We are unable to agree. A registered deed of sale does not become void merely because a mutation in respect of the sale is not attested. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this petition, which is accord ingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.