' FARRUKH LATIF, J.---Facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that the petitioners had filed a suit against the respondents for specific performance of an agreement. Their case was that suit-land was allotted under the Grow More Food Scheme to Dost Muhammad (predecessor- in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 5); he agreed to sell the same to Muhammad Suleman (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners) through agreement dated 26-2-1973 for a consideration of Rs.26,000 out of which Rs.25,000 was paid in advance and remaining amount of Rs.1,000 was to be paid at the time of transfer of proprietary rights; under the terms of the agreement Government dues i.e. Price of the land and interest were paid by Suleman in the name of Dost Muhammad; a general power of attorney was also executed by Dost Muhammad in favour of Suleman on 27-2-1973; thereafter Suleman made an application under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act to the District Collector for transferring the suit property in favour of his two sons viz. Muhammad Hanif and Muhammad Yasin (petitioners Nos.1 and 2), who accorded the permission vide order dated 19-12-1989; this was challenged by Dost Muhammad in appeal before the Member, Board of Revenue who dismissed the same on 14-6-1993; his review petition against the aforesaid order was also dismissed by the Member, Board of Revenue on 4-4- 1994; said orders of the District Collector and Member, Board of Revenue was challenged by Dost Muhammad in Writ Petition No.2740 of 1994 which was accepted by the High Court vide judgment dated 20-7-2001; resultantly transfer of the said land in favour of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 was cancelled.
2. Against the said judgment of the High Court, petitioners Nos.1 and 2. Filed C.P.L.A. No.2203 of 2001.
It was dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 17-9-2001.
3. After having been unsuccessful in the apex Court the present suit was filed by the legal heirs of Suleman on 4-10-2001 claiming that they are entitled to the specific performance of the sale agreement dated 26-2-1973 and that two days ago L.Rs of Dost Muhammad had declined to abide by the said agreement which had necessitated the filing of the suit.
4. In response thereof respondents filed application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Which was accepted by the learned trial Court vide order dated 29-6-2002 holding that the suit was not only barred under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. But also under section 11 of the C.P.C. Petitioner's appeal against the said order was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Khanewal on 18-9-2003.
5. In this civil revision the petitioners have assailed concurrent orders of the two Courts below.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that:--
(i) Both the Courts below had misinterpreted judgment of the High Court delivered in Writ Petition No.2740 of 1994; had proceeded on erroneous assumption and misconception that in view of the said judgment suit for specific performance was barred and had thereby acted in exercise of their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity;
(ii) that in the first round of litigation order of Collector granting permission of transfer of the suit- land by Suleman in favour of his sons as general attorney of Dost Muhammad was the main issue which culminated in Writ Petition No.2740 of 1994 and the relief claimed in that round was that the impugned order passed by the Collector and the Board of Revenue be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect;
(iii) that judgment passed in writ petition also reflects that sale agreement dated 26-2-1973 was neither directly or substantially in issue nor was subject-matter of that litigation; and
(iv) that in the judgment delivered by the High Court in writ petition, sale agreement was merely incidentally and collaterally considered for advancing reasons for the finding as regards general power of attorney and action taken on the basis thereof. A s such remarks recorded in paras. Nos.10 and 11 of the judgment passed in writ petition did not constitute res judicata for filing suit on the basis of sale agreement. Emphasis was laid on the words "appears to be forged" used in the judgment by the High Court to urge that regarding the sale agreement any conclusive finding or adjudication was not made by the High Court.
7. Revision petition is strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5.
8. Arguments heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.
9. A perusal of order dated 4-4-1994 passed by Member, Board of Revenue shows that the stand of Suleman and his sons before the said Court was that Dost Muhammad had entered into a sale agreement with Suleman on 26-2-1973 regarding suit-land in consideration of Rs.26,000 had received a sum of Rs.25,000 and on the following day had also executed general power of attorney in favour of Suleman, the said power of attorney was coupled with interest, hence Suleman was competent to transfer the property of his Principal (Dost Muhammad) in his own name or in the name of any other person and that after payment of adequate consideration to Dost Muhammad, Suleman had transferred the land in favour of his sons by obtaining transmission from District Collector under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act on 19-12-1989.
10. Aforesaid stand of Suleman and his sons (petitioners Nos.1 and 2) reflected that after payment of adequate compensation to Dost Muhammad sale agreement dated 26-2-1973 was acted upon, was given effect to and it was in fact specifically performed and basis of their claim was the sale agreement.
11. During the arguments in the writ petition also their stand was the same as is evident from Para. No.4 of the judgment passed by the High Court in writ petition.
12. In the said circumstances, after unfavourable decision in the writ petition the petitioners were estopped from taking a U-turn to assert that sale agreement subsists, was yet to be specifically performed and they are entitled to this specific performance. They also could not file suit regarding a matter which was their ground of defence in the first round of litigation. Sale agreement was the basis of their claim in that round.
13. In para.4 of the plaint it is alleged by the petitioners that their predecessor-ininterest Suleman had filed application as general attorney Dcst Muhammad for allotment of alternate land on the basis whereof suit-land was allotted to Dost Muhammad and in para. No5. It is alleged that in accordance with the terms of the sale agreement Suleman had deposited thel instalments viz. Sale price and interest in the name of Dost Muhammad.
14. Para No.13 of the judgment delivered in writ petition reveals that after perusal of relevant file produced by the Departmental Representative, specific findings were given by the High Court that Dost Muhammad himself gave applications for deposit of instalments on 12-5-1982, 5-6-1982, 29- 9-1985 and 4-2-1986 and that application for allotment of alternate land was also submitted by Dost Muhammad himself.
15. Regarding the sale agreement in question Dost Muhammad had specifically alleged in ground
(v) of his writ petition that it was never executed by him nor such agreement was proved or produced before any forum and that no consideration regarding suit-land was ever paid to him. A specific finding with respect to the said sale agreement is given by the High Court in para. No.15 of the judgment passed in writ petition that non-submission of written statement amounts to admission of averments made in this petition.
16. In view of the findings given by the High Court that applications for deposit of instalments and that for allotment of suit-land as alternate land was given by Dost Muhammad himself and that non-submission of written statement and non-filing of counter-affidavit amounted to admission of averments in the writ petition that sale agreement in question was never executed by Dost Muhammad nor he had received any sale consideration, the Civil Court was debarred by the principle of res judicata from entering into any inquiry regarding the said facts and by the rule of estoppel the petitioners were precluded from producing any evidence to prove or disprove the aforesaid facts.
17. I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that words used by the High Court in para.11 of its judgment that "agreement appears to be a forged document" signify a tentative assessm ent and do not amount to a conclusive finding but this does not help the petitioners inasmuch as according to subsequently para. No.15 of the same judgment, fact of non- execution of sale agreement and non-receipt of sale consideration by Dost Muhammad stood admitted by the petitioners on account of non-submission of written statement and counter- affidavit controverting the said assertion of Dost Muhammad.
18. Contention that interpretation of judgment of High Court was not correctly made by the two Courts below is therefore, repelled.
19. Writ petition was filed by Dost Muhammad himself in the year 1994 wherein he had specifically denied execution of the sale agreement and had alleged that assertion of the petitioners with respect to the alleged sale agreement was false. His said denial was in the notice of the petitioners as well as their father Suleman who were represented in that case before the High Court. The suit for specific performance was instituted on 4-10-2001. It was, therefore, hopelessly barred by limitation as well.
20. Revisional jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of fact or law not involving question of jurisdiction.
21. The words 'illegally or with material irregularity, have reference to material defects of procedure and not to errors of law or fact after formalities which the law prescribes, have been complied with.
22. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out the breach of any provisions of law or commission of any error of procedure by the Courts below.
23. Impugned judgments do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity and are therefore, not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is accordingly dismissed.