1. ' MUZAFFAR ALI, J.--- The appeal assails the judgment/order of the First Appellate Court dated 23- 11-2007 whereby the learned District Judge dismissed the review petition of the appellants. Hence this appeal.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/appellants instituted a Civil Suit bearing No,14 of 1997 before the Court of Civil Judge, Shigar. When the suit was in progress, the appellants/plaintiffs filed an application dated 4-6-2002 for amendment in the plaint under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C., but prior to arguments on the said application, another application for amendment under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Was also filed on 17-9-2002 to incorporate another Mutation No,1406 dated 29-8-1974. Later on when the plaintiff/ appellant came to know that the Mutation No,1406 has already been cancelled, he did not press the application dated 17-9-2002 and argued only on the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Dated 4-6-2002. The learned Civil Judge allowed amendment sought in the application on 6-7-2004.
3. ' Being aggrieved of the said amendment, the defendant/ respondent challenged the order dated 6-7-2004 before the District Judge, Skardu. During the course of arguments when the plaintiff/ appellant came to know that the learned Civil Judge has inserted Mutation No,1406 instead of 1038 and 974 in the body of the order, the learned counsel for the respondents stated at bar before the learned District Judge for setting aside the impugned order passed in his favour. Resultantly, revision petition accepted and the order dated 6-7-2004 passed by the trial Court was set aside.
4. ' When the suit was fixed for further proceeding, before the Civil Court, the learned counsel for appellants requested the trial Court for re-hearing of the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C.
5. The request was disallowed by the learned trial Judge vide order dated 23-4-2005, which was challenged before the learned First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court after hearing the parties dismissed the same on 30-8-2005 and the same was challenged before this Court and this Court has also dismissed the same in limine vide order dated 21-9-2005.
6. ' Obviously this is the 3rd episode on the same subject-matter under application dated 4-6-2002 for amendment in the plaint. The application was allowed on 6-7-2004 by the Civil Judge, the operative part of the order is reproduced "Therefore application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C.
7. Allowed against cost of Rs,300. The amendment as prayed for be inserted in the hearing of the plaint with red ink".
8. 'The plain perusal of the operative part of the order dated 6-7-2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge transpires that, the application under Order VI, rule 17, C.P.C. Was granted and plaintiffs were allowed to amend the plaint as .Prayed for in the application, as such in my opinion, there was no legal hurdle for the plaintiffs to submit amended plaint as prayed for in the application which was allowed despite the fact the learned Judge mistakenly has inserted a wrong mutation number on the body of the order but in its operative part, he has allowed the application as prayed for, the plaintiffs could amend in the plaint according to his prayer in the application, but the learned counsel himself became cause for setting aside the order dated 6-7-2004 passed in favour of the plaintiffs in the First Appellate Court and after burying the order with his own hands, the learned ,counsel exercised futile methods to restore the same but being failed he tried once again by submitting the fresh application on the same subject before the Court of learned Civil Judge and succeeded to get remedy in the Civil Court, but the First Appellate Court refused the remedy to the plaintiffs even in review petition, hence this appeal.
9. ' I heard the learned counsel for the parties and of the view that this appeal is not maintainable as no appeal against the rejection of the review petition has been provided in C.P.C., furthermore on merits too, the learned counsel could not persuade me to convert the appeal into writ to grant any equitable remedy to the plaintiffs as the subject-matter of the fresh application was already decided finally and the amendment sought was allowed by the learned Civil Judge as prayed for and the plaint could be amended as prayed for in the previous application (the operative part of the order dated 6-7-2004 has been reproduced on the 5th para. Of this judgment), but the learned counsel for the plaintiffs himself consented to set aside the order before the First Appellate Court and the order was set aside, hence, the fresh application on the same subject is not competent on the basis of the well-settled principle that "No one can be vexed twice for the cause which has been disposed of and has got finality."
10. ' The upshot of the above discussion is that, the appeal is dismissed considering the same not maintainable and the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge remains intact. No orders as to cost.