' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.--- This civil revision assailed judgments/decrees dated 21-9-1991 and 18-12-1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, whereby suit of the petitioners and their appeal were dismissed, respectively.
2. A short factual background of the case is that Wali Muhammad etc. Filed a suit for redemption of land measuring 24-1/4 Kanals, detailed in the plaint, with the claim that their predecessor-in- interest namely Muhammad son of Bakhu mortgaged it on 1-1-1900 with a non-Muslim Rajkapoor son of Atma Ram for a consideration of Rs,280. Revision petitioners are successors of the original plaintiffs who had claimed that in spite of mortgage of the suit-land, its possession continued with them. The plaintiffs graded themselves as occupancy tenants and reacted when Government of the Punjab through letter No,1980/60-14891 dated 22-4-1960 incorporated in the Revenue Record, the name of Central Government in their place and consequently assailed the entries in the Revenue Record. It was further pleaded in the plaint that transfer of land in the name of one Dr. Riffat Hassan was unauthorized as the same was result of collusion with the Settlement Department which was asserted to be on the basis of a forged general power of attorney, leading to transfer of the land in question, in the names of the defendants Nos.3 and 4 through Mutation No,745 dated 13-10-1972 and consequently, prayed that said land may be redeemed in their names.
3. Respondents being defendants in the suit, contested the same by filing their written statement wherein they raised objections regarding limitation and non-maintainability of second suit in view of dismissal on 21-6-1976 of their earlier suit. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. Learned Civil Judge, seized of the suit, after doing the needful, dismissed the same vide his judgment/decree dated 21-9-1991.
4. Petitioners being aggrieved of dismissal of their suit filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as the same was also dismissed on 18-12-1995. They, thereafter, filed instant revision petition which has now been placed for final determination, after completion of record.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Petitioners have not denied that suit-land was mortgaged with a non-Muslim evacuee but their claim was that on transfer of suit-land in the name of Central Government, their right of redemption was acknowledged in terms of sections 13 and 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, thus, the mortgage was still subsisting and could be redeemed but contrary view taken by the two Courts below being opposed to the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Tikamdas and another v. Abdul Wali and others PLD 1968 SC 241, Samar Gul v. Central Government and others PLD 1986 SC 35 and by this Court in the case of Muhammad Shafi v. Ghulam Qadir and others PLD 1978 Lah. 71 and Allah Bakhsh v. Member, Board of Revenue and others 1988 MLD 922, is not sustainable and consequently they were erroneously non-suited. Learned counsel for the petitioners objected to invocation of principle of res judicata by the Courts below with the plea that copy of the earlier plaint was not produced in evidence, thus, it could not be determined that matter in issue in both the suits was the same and the provisions of section 11, C.P.C. Were wrongly invoked. Oral evidence produced by the petitioners consisted of statements of P.W.1 to P.W.3 which revolved around the fact of continuous possession over the land mortgaged by their predecessor and documentary proof on their behalf consisted of copies of Revenue Record but the pivotal point involved in the case stood clinched by copy of the judgment, dated 21-6-1976 (Exh.D.1) whereby it was held as under:-- "The allottee is proved to have sold his rights in favour of defendants Nos.3 and 4. The occupancy rights of the plaintiffs were extinguished through Mutation No,722 attested on 30-5-1969 because the mortgager had failed to get the land redeemed for a period of more than sixty years. The mortgagee was the evacuee so the rights were properly mutated in favour of Central Government and thus, the land was subsequently allotted to the deserving persons."
' The above reproduced operative part of judgment, dated 21-6-1976 (Exh.D.1) clearly depicts that in the earlier suit by the predecessors of the petitioners it was held that mortgage stood extinguished by afflux of time, as the same was not got redeemed within the prescribed period of sixty years by the mortgagor. Plaint in the suit in hand shows that it was also based on the same mortgage, redemption of which was earlier found to have foreclosed. This judgment (Exh.D.1) was assailed by the predecessor of the petitioners in appeal before the learned District Judge but the same was also dismissed with alike findings through judgment (Exh.D.2). Respondents had also produced copy of mutation (Exh.D.6) relating to foreclosure of rights of the petitioners and in presence of this document stance of the petitioners cannot be reconsidered on their second suit, thus, judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are of no help to their case, at this stage because on the basis thereof, we cannot sit in appeal against judgments Exhs.D.1 and D.2 which have already become final inter parties.
6. Copies of the judgments (Exhs.D.1 and D.2) hardly left any room for the petitioners to urge that provisions of section 11, C.P.C. Were incorrectly relied to non-suit them. My analysis of the plaint in the present suit and earlier judgments is that matter in issue in both the suits was substantially the same, between the same parties and the trial Court was competent to try the first suit of the petitioners. Reference in this behalf can be made to the judgments by the apex Court in the cases of Syed Nizam Shah v. Babu Abdullah and others 1991 SCMR 1149 and Amanul Mulk v. Mian Ghafoor- ur-Rehman and others 1997 SCMR 1796.
7. Besides all this, there was another hurdle for the petitioners which they could not overcome and that is the bar created by Order II, rule 2, C.P.C., whereunder every suit was to include whole of the claim which the plaintiff was entitled to make in respect of cause of action but relinquishing any portion thereof without leave of the Court, could not subsequently file any suit with regard to omitted part of the cause of action.. Keeping in view the provisions of Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. If the case of the petitioners is scanned, it will reveal that cause of action for redemption, as claimed by them through present suit, had accrued to them at the time of institution of the earlier suit but they opted not to pray for it and deliberately relinquished this part of their claim, thus, their subsequent suit is barred by those provisions of law. Scan of record and impugned judgments revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest by the two Courts below by returning concurrent findings of facts against the petitioners, without committing any error of law/facts, thus, those are immune from interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
8. For the reasons noted above, no illegality/irregularity in terms of section 115, C.P.C. Could be pointed out in the judgments under attack, thus, instant revision petition being devoid of any merit, is dismissed, with no order as to costs.