' AKHTAR ZAMAN MALGHANI, J.---Following relief has been claimed in the instant Constitutional Petition:---
(a) That the impugned order dated 26-3-2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-V, Quetta upholding the order dated 14-9-2006 passed by Senior Civil Judge-I Quetta, is illegal void and against the law;
(b) to further declare that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable as the matter comes within the ambit of res judicata;
(c) to declare that the suit of the plaintiffs would be disposed, on the issue of law only, being not maintainable, and the same is liable to be dismissed;
(d) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners, with cost, in the interest of justice."
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the respondents Nos.1 to 8 filed a suit for declaration cancellation of mutation entries, transfer of mutation entries, partition and permanent injunction against the petitioners and respondents Nos. 9 to 81. The suit was contested by the petitioners on legal as well as factual grounds. The learned trial Court framed five issues in the light of pleading of the parties including issue No,1 based on preliminary legal objections A,B,D and E of the written statement filed by petitioners. It appears from the record that after framing of issues, the petitioners moved an application under Order XIV Rule 2, C.P.C. For dismissal of the suit in view of preliminary legal objections which application was contested by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of the parties dismissed the applications on 14th September 2006 which order was challenged by the petitioners by way of filing revision petition. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-V Quetta to whom the revision petition was transferred for disposal, dismissed the petition vide order dated 26th March,2007.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who vehemently contended that the suit filed by the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 was hit by the principles of res judicata, as the same issue was decided finally on merits by the revenue Courts which orders were upheld by this Court in Constitutional petition No,426 of 1999, therefore, both the Courts below erred in law by dismissing application of the petitioners.
4. We have carefully considered the contentions put forth by the learned counsel. At the very outset, we may observe that the instant Constitutional petition against the order of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge passed in revision jurisdiction is not maintainable. In this regard, we are fortified by the judgment reported in 1991 SCMR 970, wherein, it was observed as under:--- "The learned High Court observed that a revisional order arising out of civil litigation could not be challenged in the Writ Petition and relied upon Ghulam Hussain vs. Malik Shahbaz Khan 1985 SCMR 1925; Muhammad Bakhsh vs Ghulam Hussain 1989 SCMR 443 and Muhammad Zahoor vs Lal Muhammad 1983 SCMR 322.
' The order of High Court in circumstances is not open to challenge on any legal ground. The order was legal and proper. No point of law is involved in this petition. The petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused."
' Furthermore; we find no substance in the contention of learned counsel with regard to res judicata, as it is well-settled law that any order made by revenue authorities under the Land Revenue Act would not debar the aggrieved party to establish his rights or title in respect of immovable property by invoking jurisdiction of Civil Courts. If any authority is needed, we may refer to the judgment reported in PLD 1994 Peshawar 249, wherein, it was held as under:--- ' "Section 53 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, itself creates a right in favour of an aggrieved person to approach the Civil Court for declaration of his right under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. On the other hand, as held by a Division Bench of Balochistan High Court in Mir Rehman Khan and another v. Sardar Asadaullah Khan and 14 others (PLD 1983 Quetta 52) and to which I respectfully subscribe, that "the scope of Section 172 of the. West Pakistan Land Revenue Act,1967 is entirely different. It only excludes the Civil Courts from taking in hand the functions assigned to the Revenue Courts as also the questioning of their methodology adopted for the discharge of such functions". I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that the functions of Revenue Courts is to prepare the revenue records in the light of the evidence with regard to one's title or interest, but the finality is attached to the orders of the Civil Courts who shall determine civil rights such as the claim of the petitioner being daughter of Said 'Khan decided by leading cogent and reliable evidence before them. The view of the learned Civil Judge does not, therefore, suffer from any legal infirmity. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act,1877, confers a right upon an aggrieved person to seek declaration from a Civil Court with regard to his/her status (i.e, her claim of being daughter of Said Khan deceased in this case), right of title to a character both in rem and personum".
' As regards judgment of this Court passed in Constitutional Petition No,426 of 1999 it may be noted that the said judgment was not passed on merits. For the sake of convenience the relevant part of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:--- ' "On hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that learned Member Board of Revenue in fact had allowed the appeal, but on account of clerical mistake the used word "Appeal is dismissed and order dated 10-3-1997 and 18-7-1998 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Ziarat and Commissioner, Sibi respectively are upheld". Therefore in the parties interest and also to shorten the litigation, we are of the opinion that as both the parties are before is, therefore, their error can be rectified.
' Accordingly, the order of M.B.R. Is rectified to the following effect:-- ' "Let the concerned authority of Revenue Department enter/attest the disputed entries afresh after giving notice to all the Patidaran."
' As a consequence whereof the order of Deputy Commissioner Ziarat dated 10th March,1997 and Commissioner Sibi dated 1fh July, 1998 in pursuance whereof the disputed entries were maintained is set aside, ' For the foregoing reasons, we find no merits in the instant petition, which is dismissed in limine accordingly.