Suit for perpetual injunction was filed by respondents Nos.3 and 4 against respondents Nos.1 and 2 and others. The said suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mianwali through judgment and decree dated 8-11-1993.
2. Against the dismissal of their suit, respondents Nos.3 and 4 filed an appeal which was accepted through judgment and decree dated 18-2-1997 by the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali, who setting aside the judgment and decree dated 8-11-1993 proceeded to decree the suit of respondents Nos.3 and 4.
3. Judgment and decree dated 18-2-1997 of the learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali was initially assailed in the present Civil Revision bearing No.331-D of 1997. This civil revision was filed by Liaqat Ali Solehri, Divisional Forest Officer, Mianwali and Gul Noor Khan, Sub-Divisional Officer, Mianwali against the Province of Punjab through Collector as respondent No.1, Government of the Punjab Forest Department through its Secretary as respondent No.2 and plaintiffs as respondents Nos.3 and 4 and subsequent vendees as respondents Nos.5 to 10. This civil revision was admitted to regular hearing through order dated 27-3-1997. However, in this petition, C. M. No.3-C of 1997 was filed on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2 to be transposed as petitioners. This C.M. Was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6-6-1997. A second C.M. Bearing No.4-C of 1997 was filed on the same subject by respondents Nos.1 and 2. This C.M. Was dismissed on 9-6-1997 with following important observations:-- "This application appears to be misconceived. Earlier, the petitioners had filed a similar application which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 6-6-1997. Instead of filing an application for restoration of the earlier petition, he has filed another one with an identical prayer. The petitioners may, if so advised, file an application for restoration of the earlier petition or instead of wasting further time may file a revision petition on behalf of the Province of Punjab which shall be considered on its own merits. The present petition is dismissed with the above observation."
3. Thereafter, from the above date, the present petition remained pending and continued for service of the respondents for one reason or the other. Finally this petition has come up for hearing before this Court today.
4. At the very outset, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.3, 4 and 6 to 10 produced before me judgment dated 10-10-1997 passed by this Court in Civil Revision No.957-D of 1997. It is interesting to note that a Second Civil Revision bearing No.957-D of 1997 was filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 as well as by petitioner No.1 to call in question judgment and decree which was also impugned through the present Civil Revision bearing No.331-D of 1997. Significantly, at the time of filing of the second civil revision, the present civil revision was not withdrawn and thus it continued to be on the cause list.
5. The Second Civil Revision bearing No.957-D of 1997 .Was dismissed through judgment dated 10- 10-1997 for being barred by time. However, importantly it was held in the said judgment that the present Civil Revision bearing No.331-D of 1997 was without proper sanction and approval of the Solicitor, Government of the Punjab, Lahore.
6. Judgment dated 10-10-1997 passed in Civil Revision No.957-D of 1997 was upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan through judgment dated 12-4-1999 in C.P. No.218-L of 1998.
The judgment. Thus became final. In view of judgment dated 10-10-1997, this Court has no option but to dismiss the present Civil Revision bearing No.331-D of 1997 for the following reasons:--
(i) That the present civil revision has been held to be without proper sanction and approval and it was so admitted by respondents Nos.1 and 2 in their C.Ms. Nos.3-C and 4-C of 1997;
(ii) The above judgment has become final having been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan; and
(iii) Second Civil Revision bearing No.957-D of 1997 was properly filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and the present petitioner to assail the impugned judgment and decree but the same was dismissed through judgment dated 10-10-1997 for being barred by time.
7. The present civil revision is thus un-maintainable and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.