1. ' SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.--- Suit for possession instituted by the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court on 27-9-2004; whereas on appeal the said judgment was reversed by the Appellate Court and her appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur on 24-5-2005.
2. This is revision petition by the defendants in the suit qua the judgment of the Appellate Court.
3. ' The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is contended by the learned counsel that while reversing the judgment of the trial Court the learned Appellate Court has failed to correctly appreciate the import and effect of order, dated 14-11-2001, whereby Writ Petition No,20299 of 2001 was dismissed by this Court. It is further contended that the respondent/plaintiff was bound to prove Issue No,1 irrespective of the dismissal of the writ petition; and that description of the property in possession of the petitioners and that of the respondent is distinct and different. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has endeavored to support the judgment passed by the Appellate Court and contends that having filed writ petition and lost, the petitioners cannot take the plea that they were not in possession of the disputed property.
4. ' It has been noted above that the suit filed by the respondent was dismissed by the trial Court primarily by recording a finding that the respondent/plaintiff had failed to prove Issue No,1 and Issue No,7 was disposed of accordingly in the light of findings on Issue. No,1. On her appeal the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, on consideration of the evidence took the view that "nothing is on record to show that the sale-deed Exh.D.2 was ever incorporated in the Revenue Record or any mutation was sanctioned on the basis of this sale-deed. The respondents have failed to prove their valid title in the property in question prior to transfer of the same in favour of appellant through transfer deed dated 15-7-2000 the claim of the respondents regarding purchase of property in question prior to transfer of the same in favour of appellant was not accepted by the Honourable Lahore High Court". He thus, reversed the findings of the trial Court on Issue No,1 and also decided Issue No,7, against the petitioners/defendants. In order to appreciate the stance of the petitioners it is appropriate to keep in view their plea before this Court in Writ Petition No,10299 of 2001. Undoubtedly their stance was that the property which was auctioned in the year 1982 in favour of Nazar Hussain, (the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent) had been purchased by them and was in their possession. They had assailed the auction held in the year 1982 and consequential transfer deed dated 15-7-2000 but their petition was dismissed for the reasons that "after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the present petition must fail for the reasons that the petitioners acquiesced with the auction, which took place on 17-4-1982 and seek to challenge the same after such a long delay. It may be noticed that the list in which the property in dispute figures at serial No,139 was published oil 6-4-1982. By 16-4-1982 objections could be raised to the same. The petitioners or their predecessor-in-interest could have filed objections and applied for its deletion from the list if the said property had already been disposed of in the year 1960 as is claimed by them. There is nothing on record to show that they made any such attempt. Eventually the auction took place on 17-4-1982, which was approved in favour of Nazir Hussain. The issuance of the transfer documents on 15-7-2000 in pursuance of the above mentioned auction was perfectly in accord therewith. The petitioners thus, acquisced with the auction proceedings and the orders. Their challenge at this belated stage cannot be countenanced. Their conduct as well as laches disentitle them from invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine". It shows that their challenge to the auction dated 17-4-1982 was about the same property but remained unsuccessful. Since admittedly the said order was not assailed any further, that attained finality and still hold the field.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though the said order was not assailed by the petitioners the same should be ignored as the filing of writ petition by them was a wrong step based on a mistaken advice of their learned A counsel, cannot be countenanced as the import and effect of that order cannot be overlooked or ignored. Indeed the same plea was sought to be raised before the Civil Court which had been taken in the writ petition. It is obvious that had there been no nexus with the property in dispute the petitioners would not have filed the writ petition in the High Court. Having done so it is too late for them to take a different stance. The principle about non-challenge and finality of judgment stated in Abdul Majid and others v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan and others PLD 1982 SC 146; Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 1983 SC 46 and Pir Bakhsh represented by his legal heirs and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others PLD 1987 SC 145 is fully attracted and precludes the petitioners to take such a plea and also the Civil Court to ignore or bypass the order passed by the High Court which became final qua the parties.
6. ' In view of the above, the approach adopted by the learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any illegality or. Material irregularity which could warrant interference by this Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.