' FARRUKH LATIF, J.---Petitioners had filed a suit against respondents for declaration that Mutation No.155 sanctioned on 10-11-1985 is against facts, collusive, illegal, against principles of natural justice, ineffective on their rights and is liable to be corrected and that they are in possession of the entire suit-land measuring 98 Kanals, 18 Marlas. By way of consequential relief, it was prayed that respondents be perpetually restrained from interfering with their possession or resorting to any proceedings for their eviction from the said land.
2. Precisely, their case was that one Rehmat Ali was the owner of land measuring 98 Kanals, 18 Marlas out of which he had sold 12 Marlas of land to the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondents Nos.4 to 10 through registered sale-deed dated 20-2-1983. Out of the remaining land i.e. 86 Kanals, 18 Marlas, half was orally sold to the petitioners by the said vendor and half was sold to respondents Nos.2 and 3. The vendor had directed his attorney (respondent No.11) to get the mutation regarding the said oral sale attested in favour of the vendees. Said attorney, however, in the absence of the petitioners and by concealing the fact that 12 Marlas of land had already been sold vide registered sale-deed, got Mutation No.155 attested on 10-11-1985 regarding the entire land measuring 98 Kanals, 18 Marlas wherein shares of respondents Nos.2, 3, 13 and 14 were incorrectly mentioned. On the basis of aforesaid illegal mutation, respondents have initiated proceedings for partition before the Revenue Authorities.
3. In the written statement, stance of the respondents was that petitioners had previously filed a suit challenging the same mutation, which was dismissed on 15-2-1989 by Civil Judge, Shakargarh and appeal against the aforesaid decree was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Narowal on 26-4-1994. This judgment/ decree was not assailed by the petitioners in any higher forum hence it had attained finality on account of which petitioners were debarred from filing the present suit.
4. Suit of the petitioners was dismissed by the trial Court on 5-5-1998 under section 11, C.P.C. Their appeal was also dismissed by Additional District Judge, Narowal on 6-6-2000 on the ground that judgment of Additional District Judge, Narowal passed in the previous suit on 26-4-1994 reflected that petitioners had previously also challenged Mutation No.155 to the extent of 12 Marlas which was purchased by them through registered sale-deed dated 20-2-1983 and in that suit they had not asserted their present claim of having purchased half of the remaining land measuring 86 Kanals, 18 Marlas through oral sale-deed and had also not assailed the alleged incorrect incorporation of the shares of the respondents in that mutation although the said grounds were available to them hence claim which was omitted and relinquished by them in their previous suit was not only barred by Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. But was also hit by the principle of constructive res judicata under section 11, C.P.C.
5. In this civil revision, petitioners have assailed the afore-referred judgments respectively by the trial Court and Additional District Judge on 5-5-1998 and 6-6-2000.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that:-
(i) decision made by the Civil Court and Additional District Judge in the earlier round of litigation was void, as"M.L.R. 115 was not applicable and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the matter under section M.L.R.
115. Reliance was placed on the case of Rulia and others v. Fateh Muhammad and others 1989 CLC 1705;
(ii) both the Courts below had failed to appreciate that provisions of res judicata were not attracted inasmuch as judgments passed by the Courts in the previous round of litigation were without lawful authority hence said Courts not being Courts of competent jurisdiction, provisions of section 11, C.P.C. Were not attracted and that;
(iii) both the Courts below had misread the record.
7. Revision petition is strongly opposed by learned counsel for respondents who has fully supported the impugned judgments.
8. Arguments heard. Revision petition and the annexures appended therewith perused.
9. Adverting to the first argument of petitioners' counsel, it may be observed that from the tenor of the impugned judgments, it is clear that in the previous round of litigation, petitioner had challenged Mutation No. 155, dated 10-11-1985 as against facts, illegal and void and their suit as well as appeal was dismissed meaning thereby that they had failed to prove that the said mutation was illegal and void. There is nothing in the impugned judgments on the basis whereof it may be presumed that in the earlier round of litigation, matter in controversy was M.L.R.
115. In support of said contention, petitioners did not annex with this civil revision copy of the plaint of their former suit, judgment of trial Court whereby that suit was dismissed and judgment of Additional District Judge whereby their appeal was dismissed on 26-4-1994. On the bald assertion of the petitioners which is not supported by any evidence, it cannot be assumed that in the previous litigation, controversy related to M.L.R. 115 and it was adjudicated upon by the Civil Court and the Additional District Judge.
' Moreover, said suit was not instituted by the respondents, it was filed by the petitioners themselves and after having failed, it does not lie in their mouth to turn around and to say that the Courts had no jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of the aforesaid Court was invoked by the petitioners themselves.
' So far as the authority referred by the petitioners is concerned i.e. 1989 CLC 1705 there is no cavil to the proposition that question whether a transaction is hit by provisions of M.L.R. 64 falls within the exclusive domain of Land Commission Authorities and such question cannot be raised or examined in civil Court, but as has been stated above, there is nothing on record to show that in the previous suit filed by the petitioners, the aforesaid question was raised, examined and was decided by the civil Court or by its appellate Court. The authority referred by petitioners' counsel is, therefore, not applicable to the, facts and circumstances of B this case. First argument of petitioners' counsel is accordingly repelled.
10. Second argument of petitioners' counsel is irrelevant because there is no material on record on the basis of which it may be inferred that Courts in the previous round of litigation had no jurisdiction and lawful authority to decide the matter which was before them.
It was not denied that in the previous suit, the petitioners had challenged validity of Mutation No.155 to the extent of land measuring 12 Marlas only. Petitioners did not assail the mutation to the extent of remaining land, which was allegedly purchased by them through oral sale and had also omitted to assert that shares of the respondents were not correctly reflected in the said mutation. They were therefore clearly debarred from again challenging that mutation on the grounds which were relinquished by them. Their subsequent suit was therefore squarely hit not only by Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. But also by constructive res judicata under Explanation IV of section 11, C.P.C.
11. Referring to the final argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any portion of record, which was allegedly misread, neither any misreading of record could be pointed out by him in the impugned judgments.
12. Impugned judgments are reasonable and do not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity hence this civil revision, being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with costs.