' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- Instant civil revision assailed the judgment/decrees, dated 10- 6-2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby he accepted the appeal filed by the respondents and dismissed petitioner's suit for declaration by reversing the judgment/decree of the trial Court.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts are that Ghulam Muhammad petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that an evacuee Shop No,9/209-A-B with Chaubara, Galla Mandi Lala Musa was owned/ possessed by him, along with the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. According to him, Imam Din claimed that PTD of the entire shop was issued in his name but he had no such right, as petitioner was owner in the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share.
3. Respondents Nos.5, 6, 8 and 9 contested the suit being defendants, with the pleas that the same was barred by limitation; matter stood decided through judgment by the apex Court, dated 19-12- 1991 in C.A. 282 of 1981; suit property was declared to be consisted of 2 units i,e, 9/209-A, 9/209-B and the earlier part of the property was decided to be in the ownership of Imam Din whereas the later was held in the ownership of Mian Muhammad. These respondents further pleaded that one of the owners namely Mian Muhammad filed a review petition before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, claiming ownership over the entire property but the same was declined.
Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence.
The learned Civil Judge seized of the matter after doing the needful, out of his appraisal of evidence/facts, decreed petitioner's suit vide judgment/decree, dated 12-5-1999.
4. Contesting respondents were namely Tariq Ameen etc. Were not satisfied with the decision of the trial Court and consequently, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat where they succeeded, as their appeal was accepted on 10-6-2000 and petitioner's suit was dismissed, as noted above. Petitioner, thereafter, filed instant revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record, has now been placed for final determination.
Respondents in response to notice by this Court appeared and were represented through their counsel.
' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Undisputedly, in the earlier round of litigation, on Settlement side petitioner's claim of being owner in the suit property to the extent of 1/2 share was considered by the apex. Court of this country, after dismissal of L.P.A. No,1341 of 1966 by this Court. The Honourable Supreme Court graciously decided Civil Appeal No,1282 of 1991 on 19-12-1991 through erstwhile judgment (Exh.D.3) and paragraphs Nos.9 to 12 of the judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court are most relevant for decision of instant case which are reproduced for convenience/ready reference and read as under:- "(9) As per the new and fresh material allegedly brought before the notice of the reviewing Judge which necessitated the review was; "It is urged that the premises in question included both parts of Shop No,9/209 and that the Municipal Committee, Lalamusa on 27th April, 1961, have served a notice on the petitioner threatening to cancel his licence, among others, on the ground that he did not maintain a separate store". Both the points, on the face of the record are not at all fresh or new material of which the respondents after the exercise of due diligence did not know or could not produce. Had both the shops been in his possession for which there is not an iota of evidence, the respondents would have got the suit shop deleted from the auction list, would have challenged the very auction and would have questioned the issue of PTO and PTD in favour of the appellant. This he did not do at all. In fact he claimed the suit shop as a flour mill much after the issue of PTD in the name of the appellant. All the Settlement Authorities after properly examining the material held that Shop No,9/209-B to be a separate and independent. Therefore, under the circumstances no material existed for the reviewing Judge to hold that the disputed shop was part and parcel of Shop No,9/209-A. Similarly, the question that the Municipal Committee, has refused to renew the licence for running a mill in favour of the respondent because he did not have a store is not a fresh material either. This point was taken up by the respondent in para. 13(d) of his writ petition and notice dated 27-4-1961 was issued to him during the pendency of his writ petition which was ultimately dismissed on 17-12-1962. This would indicate that he fully knew about the non-renewal of the licence but he did not press it at the time of hearing of his petition. Even at the time of preliminary hearing of the review petition this point was not urged before the review Judge and was only taken when regular hearing of the review petition was held. In the light of the above it cannot hardly be said that the refusal to renew the licence was afresh and new material necessitating the review of the case.
(10) As far the order of the learned L.P.A. Bench it may be said with regret that the learned Judges did not at all apply their mind and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant in a slipshod manner, which under the circumstances, cannot be sustained.
(11) The respondents have sought the transfer of both the shops as an industrial concern on the strength of para.4 of the Memorandum No,2177-E&M-Reh/60, dated 4-5-1960 available on pages 141 to 143 of the old Settlement Manual. The respondents can hardly take the advantage of para. No,4 because admittedly their predecessor-in-interest was in possession of Shop No,9/209-A where he had installed the machinery. Their case is covered by para.6 of the same memorandum and they will, as such, be entitled to that portion of the property, which is being used by them as an industrial concern.
(12) The view that we take in the matter is that the appeal is allowed. The order, dated 16-11-1966 passed in review jurisdiction and that of the L.P.A. Bench dated 26-4-1981 are set aside with no order as to costs."
5. above reproduced clear findings by the apex Court, left no room for fresh adjudication of the matter, on any suit by any of the A parties who were parties to the earlier litigation. Since suit by the petitioner itself was not maintainable at law, his evidence produced in an B incompetent suit was of no legal validity. It is amazing that in presence of judgment by the Honourable Supreme Court inter parties, on the same subject, how trial Court attempted to reopen the matter by granting decree in favour of the petitioner. The complained act of the trial Court was not only coram non judice but was also undertaken without any legal sanction behind and was taken, being oblivious of the fact that judgment C inter parties by the apex Court could not have been deviated in any circumstance. Scan of record and the impugned judgment revealed that Court of appeal correctly concluded the lis and rightly brought the things to their required position by setting aside an unfair judgment, without committing any error of law/facts.
6. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court was made out; consequently instant revision petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with costs throughout.