' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This case has rather a chequered history. On 29-10-1974 the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit against the petitioners and the remaining respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that the suit-land mentioned in the plaint was allotted to Noor Muhammad, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners under the Well Sinking Scheme. The lot was cancelled. He appointed Khushi Muhammad (respondent No,3) as his general attorney. The said Noor Muhammad entered into an agreement to sell the said land to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and directed his attorney to transfer the land in their favor after restoration of the lot. All the expenses and price, etc., was be paid by the said respondents Nos.1 and 2 after the restoration of the lot respondents No,3 executed an agreement in favor of the respondents No,1 and 2 as an attorney of the said Noor Muhammad which was registered on 11-7-1973. The land was delivered which was brought under cultivation, houses were constructed and the Well was sunk. They are continuing in possession ever-since. They have performed all the terms of the agreement and have paid all the charges pertaining to the said lot and the conferment of proprietary rights is only a formality. It was then stated that Noor Muhammad has died and his L.Rs,i,e, the petitioners have refused to perform their part of the contract. The suit was resisted by the petitioners with the denial regarding the appointment of respondent No,3 as an attorney by Noor Muhammad and denial of the said agreement. Noor Muhammad had also filed a suit against respondents Nos. 1' to 3 seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the suit lot and the agreement executed by respondent No,3 in favor of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is illegal and void and ineffective upon his rights. The suits were consolidated. Consolidated issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The suit filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was decreed while the one filed by Noor Muhammad was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 2-4-1976. Noor Muhammad filed a first appeal which was allowed by the learned District Judge, Mianwali, on 29-3-1977. An additional issue was framed and the case was remanded back. This time the learned trial Court dismissed both the suits on 11-5- 1978. Both the parties filed first appeals which were heard together by a learned ADJ-I, Mianwali.
Vide judgment and decree, dated 29-6-1982 the appeal filed by the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was dismissed. The appeal filed by Noor Muhammad was allowed only to this extent that he was declared to be the owner of the land. However, his plea that he had not appointed respondent No,2 as his general attorney was rejected. This judgment and decree was challenged by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by filing C.R. No,1283/82 in this Court. The civil revision was allowed on 25-2-1998. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to convert this 'suit into one for specific performance of agreement. The judgment and decree dismissing the suit of Noor Muhammad was kept intact and the case remanded only to see whether some legal objection is available to the petitioners (L.Rs of Noor Muhammad) to the said agreement, specific performance whereof was being sought.
Amended plaint and amended written statement were accordingly filed. Issues arising out of the said pleadings were framed. Some evidence was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 vide judgment and decree, dated 14-10-2000. A first appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned ADJ-I, Bhakkar, on 14-9-2004.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that notwithstanding the judgments earlier delivered including the one delivered in C.R. No,1283/82, this Court ought to re-examine the question of valid execution of the power of attorney by Noor Muhammad in favor of Khushi Muhammad respondent No,3. Mr. Allah Wasaya Malik, Advocate, has put in appearance in response to a pre-admission notice and supports the impugned judgments and decrees particularly with reference to the findings recorded by this Court earlier in C.R. No,1283/82.
3. I have gone through the several judgments passed in this case earlier as well as the impugned judgments and the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioners. In para. 9 of the impugned judgment, the learned ADJ has noted the points determined in the judgment, dated 25-2-1998 of this Court in C.R. No,1283/82. I deem it appropriate to reproduce the said para-9 of the impugned judgment hereunder:-- "(9) The perusal of the order, dated 25-2-1998 passed in the civil revision through which the suit was remanded for fresh decision etc. Shows that the following points were finally determined through it which could not be reopened either before the learned trial Court or before this Court:--
(a) That Khushi Muhammad was validly appointed as general attorney of Noor Muhammad and he had the authority to execute the sale agreement in dispute on his behalf.
(b) That the deposit of the outstanding government dues regarding the disputed lot in compliance with the decree, dated 9-7-1973, Exh.P.4 was well in time and was not in breach of the terms of the said decree.
(c) That the sale agreement in dispute was not violative of law and no permission of Thal Development Authority was required for it as held by the superior Courts.
(d) That the plea of possession of the purchaser could not be turned down in a mechanical way.
(e) That the appellants could raise objections through their written statement regarding the disputed sale agreement being collusive, without consideration, inconsiderable and that the respondents were not entitled to the relief of specific performance in equity and also due to their conduct under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act.
(f) That the suit for declaration filed by the appellant& shall remain dismissed." I have examined the earlier judgment, dated 25-2-1998 of this Court and I find and the learned counsel agree that the learned ADJ has very correctly analyzed the said judgment. It will be seen that it was found by the learned ADJ-I, Mianwali, in his judgment, dated 29-6-1982 that Noor Muhammad did appoint Khushi Muhammad respondent No,3 as his general attorney. There is no dispute whatsoever that the agreement Exh.P.2 was executed by the said general attorney. The agreement was also found to be validly executed. However, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were knocked out with reference to the form of the suit which was allowed to be a corrected by this Court. It will be noted that no possible legal objection is available against the said agreement and its execution by Khushi Muhammad as attorney of Noor Muhammad. What is being challenged even now is the execution of power of attorney by Noor Muhammad in favor of Khushi Muhammad respondent No,3. It has been categorically held by this Court in para. 11 of the judgment, dated 25-2-1998 at page 57 of the paper book that the evidence on record does prove that the respondent No,2 (Khushi Muhammad) was validly appointed attorney and had the authority to execute the agreement of sale on behalf of respondent No,1 (Noor Muhammad). The findings of both the Courts below were accordingly confirmed.
4. The suit was remanded back with the limited scope by allowing the petitioners to take any legal objections to the validity of the agreement and its enforcement and the matter has been dealt with by the learned Courts below accordingly. This being so, no case stands made out for interference with the impugned judgment and decree in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The. Civil revision accordingly is dismissed in limine. in limine.