2003 PLP 374 (CLC)

(2)??????? Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct to file the present suit? OPD (3)??????? Whether the defendants are entitled to recover compensatory costs under section 35‑A of Civil Procedure Code? OPD 1A to 5‑A. (4)??????? Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD 1A to 5A (5)??????? Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection of defendant No.2? OPD2 (6)??????? Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD (7)??????? Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD (8)??????? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the possession of the suit property as prayed for? OPP (9)??????? Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.21,600 from the defendants? OPP (10)????? Relief.

2. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 20‑7‑1994. The petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Okara who dismissed same vide judgment and decree dated 20‑2‑1997. Hence the present revision petition.

3. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that jttd0ments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non‑reading of the record. The petitioners were non‑suited by both the Courts below on the basis of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme court dated 7‑11‑1990 (Exh.D/2) passed in Civil Appeal No. 125 of 1980. He further submits that aforesaid judgment was passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the settlement side. Therefore, both the Courts below were erred in law to rely upon, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. He further submits that judgments passed by the Civil Court Exh.P/2 and Exh.P/3 in favour of the respondents and petitioners were not set aside by any higher Court as the same were not challenged before any higher forum therefore, those judgments attained finality. He further urges that both the Courts below did not consider the documentary evidence of the petitioners. Therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non‑reading of the record. He further urges that petitioners placed on record plethora of documents but both the Courts below were erred in law not to consider the documentary evidence of the petitioners. He further urges that petitioners were defrauded by the respondents. This aspect of the case was not considered by both the Courts below.

4. Learned counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioners are auction‑purchasers and have no right whatsoever qua the property in question. The Honourable Supreme Court after considering all the facts and circumstances decided the case against the petitioners. He further urges that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen the matter which had already been finally decided by the Honourable Supreme Court in support of his contention he relied upon Abdul Majid's ease 1995 SCMR

429. He further urges that suit filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in the eyes of haw. The petitioner has to file execution petition. Therefore, both the Courts below were justified to non‑suit the petitioners. He summed up his arguments that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the' parties and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:‑‑ "In view of what has been stated above. we accept this appeal and hold the orders passed by the Settlement Department to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The appellant shall deposit the balance amount within two months failing which the authorities will proceed in accordance with law. The result would be that the cost of both the parties will be paid by the Settlement Department." The petitioners failed to bring on record any document to show. that Mst. Flora Maryam respondent No. 1 did not deposit the balance amount within the stipulated period as prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments. In this view of the matter both the Courts below had rightly come to the conclusion that Mst. Flora Maryam had become the owner of the house in her possession. It is also admitted fact that aforesaid decree dated 26‑3‑1995 was secured by the petitioners during the pendency of the litigation either before the High Court or before the Honourable Supreme Court. In this view of the matter both we Courts below have rightly given finding of fact against the petitioner that aforesaid decree was hit by the principle of lis pendense. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners were parties in the proceedings in the earlier round of litigation which was finalized between the parties by the Apex Court of the country in the aforesaid judgment. The petitioners did not point out the decree secured by them dated 26‑7‑1985 either before this Court or before the Honourable Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, both the Courts below were justified to non‑suit the petitioners. It is settled principle of law that once the matter has been concluded up to the apex Court then the Civil Court has no A jurisdiction to re‑open the same, on the well known principle of res judicata. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:‑‑ (1)??????? Asif Jan Siddiqui v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 1987 SC 46; (2) Abdul Majeed and others v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan PLD 1982 SC

146. It is also admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners. It is settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the finding of the Courts below while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Civil Procedure Code unless B and until the same is result of misreading or non‑reading of the record. Learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any, piece of evidence which was misread by the Court` below or violated any principle laid down by the superior Courts therefore, revision petition has no merit as per principle laid down by the Privy Council in N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. The Hindu Religious Endowment Board PLD 1949 PC

26. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./B‑107/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.