' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 140-2002 in Civil Revision Application No,1 of 2002 (Muhammad Bachal and 5 others v. Saindad and 5 others) passed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench Larkana whereby the said revision was dismissed maintaining the judgment, dated 10-10-2001 passed by the District Judge, Dadu in Civil Appeal No,51 of 2000.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Muhammad Bachal and five others filed Suit No,48 of 2000 before the Senior Civil Judge, Mehar against the respondents for declaration and permanent injunction, praying therein that it be declared that suit property S.No,239 situated in Deh Chandan Taluka Khairpur Nathan Shah belonged to the plaintiffs/ petitioners and the respondents/defendants were having no right, title or interest over the said property and the entries made in favor of respondents/defendants be cancelled with further prayer that permanent injunction against the said respondents/defendants Nos.1, 2 and 3 be issued restraining them from interfering with possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The Senior Civil Judge on an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Rejected the plaint holding that suit filed by petitioners/plaintiffs was not maintainable and was barred by law. The petitioners/plaintiffs preferred Civil Appeal No,51 of 2000 before the District Judge, Dadu which was also dismissed vide order, dated 10-10-2001. The petitioners/plaintiffs preferred Civil Revision No,1 of 2002 before the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench Larkana which was dismissed vide impugned judgment, dated 1-10-2002, hence this petition.
3. We have heard the learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners Mr. Akhlaque Ahmed Siddiqui and perused the record minutely.
4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Single Judge of the High Court and two Courts below have not appreciated the law and illegally rejected the plaint on the ground that suit was barred under the law as such all Courts failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them.
5. We do not find substance and merit in the said contention.
6. Khair Muhammad father of the petitioners/plaintiffs had filed appeal in respect of suit-land on the ground that the entries in the Revenue Record were forged and false before the Assistant A Commissioner, which was rejected. Thereafter appeal was preferred before the Deputy Commissioner, Dadu which too was rejected. Revision filed before the Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad was also rejected. Thereafter he preferred revision before the Member Board of Revenue, Hyderabad which was allowed and the orders of the Revenue Authorities were set aside on 17-9-1996. During pendency of proceedings before the Revenue Authorities, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed suit in the Civil Court at Mehar for declaration and permanent injunction regarding suit-land and after decision of Member Board of Revenue the respondents Nos.1, 2 and 3 filed C.P. No,D-1995 of 1996 in the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Bench, Larkana which order was set aside. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present suit against the respondents/defendants.
7. It would appear from the record that Khair Muhammad, father of the petitioners had withdrawn suit from the Court of Civil Judge, Mehar without seeking permission to file fresh one and the petitioners/plaintiffs did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order, dated 1-12-1999 of the High Court of Sindh Larkana Bench before this Court. The petitioners/plaintiffs failed to challenge the order of High Court of Sindh, dated 1-12-1999 before this Court whereby the order of the Member, Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad was set aside. The learned D.B. Of the High Court in para.7 of order, dated 1-12-1999 has observed as under:-- "It is manifest on the face of it that the impugned order was passed in the third round of filing of revisions before the Revenue Authorities. The above referred proviso of paragraph 14 of Ordinance XI of 1980 stipulated that order passed in revision in the land revenue matters attained finality and cannot be called in question on an application of any party affected by such orders. In the instant case the impugned order has been passed on third revision application, which is not maintainable in accordance with law. In the above-referred case the Honourable Supreme Court at page 452 has observed as under:-- "It is not right to say that the Tribunal, which is invested with the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, has the jurisdiction to decide it "rightly or wrongly" because the condition of the grant of jurisdiction is that it would decide the matter in accordance with the law. When the Tribunal goes wrong in law, it goes outside the jurisdiction conferred on it because the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide rightly but not the jurisdiction to decide wrongly. Accordingly, when the Tribunal makes an error of law in deciding the matter before, it goes outside its jurisdiction and therefore, a determination of the Tribunal which is shown to be erroneous on a point of law can be quashed under the writ jurisdiction on the ground that it is in the excess of its jurisdiction."
' Accordingly, the petition is allowed impugned order is set aside."
8. The learned Single Judge in the concluding para. Of the impugned order observed:-- "I have gone through the order passed at different stage and the order passed in Constitutional Petition No,95 of 1996 by a Division Bench of Sindh High Court, Larkana has been authored by my learned brother Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, as he then was, and the co-author has been myself.
I am bound by not only my previous order but also the order of a Division Bench. The learned counsel for the applicant when confronted with this position conceded. I am also of the confirmed view that the matter stood decided once and for all after the constitutional petition had been decided. The application under Order VII, rule 11 was rightly moved and the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge was appropriate. Revision was accordingly dismissed by a short order, dated 1- 10-2002 and above are the reasons thereof."
9. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order rightly concurred with the Courts below in holding that the plaint of the petitioners/plaintiffs was rightly rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the constitutional jurisdiction, considering that the order passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court in C.P. No,95 of 1996 attained finality which was not challenged before this Court. The order, on the face of the record is legal and proper and no legal or factual infirmity is pointed out. Consequently, no ground for grant of leave is made out which is declined and petition is dismissed.