ARMED ALI SHAIKH, J.--- Through this constitutional petition, the petitioners have prayed as under:---
(a) Set aside the impugned judgment dated 30-7-2007 passed by the Additional District Judge Sanghar in Civil Revision No.13 of 1999 (re: Gul Muhammad (deceased) through his L.Rs. v. Muhammad Umer and others) and maintain the order passed by the learned trial Court on 9-9-1999 on application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In F.C. Suit No.93 of 1998 (Re: Muhammad Umer v. Province of Sindh and others.).
(b) Cost of the suit may be saddled upon the respondents.
(c) Any other relief(s) which this honourable Court deems fit, just and proper in favour of the petitioners;
2. The facts leading to this petition are that on 19-11-1998 the petitioners had filed F.C. Suit No.93 of 1998 re: Muhammad Umar and another v. Province of Sindh and others for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land bearing S.No.552 of abandoned Sarhal Wah and Khad as well as S.No.862 total area 13.03 Acres, situated in Deh Bantheri Taluka Khipro District Sanghar in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Khipro stating therein that aforesaid land was granted to their father namely Fateh Ali son of Muhammad Siyal Hingorjo in the year 1935 by Colonization Officer Sukkur Barrage Hyderabad and Sanghar Barrage.
3. The grievance of the petitioners was that the defendants/ respondents Nos.2 and 3 in collusion with each other were issuing entitlement slips to various persons under Katchiabadi Scheme in Khipro Town, in respect of land of the petitioners.
4. The defendants in the said suit were properly served but they did not contest the suit, therefore, vide order dated 27-2-1999 their side was closed and ultimately suit of the petitioners was decreed vide Judgment and decree dated 16-4-1999 and 22-4-1999 respectively.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that in respect of same land, F.C. Suit No.16 of 1999 was filed by the respondent No.1 for declaration and permanent injunction during pendency of he petitioner's suit. The said suit of the respondent No.1 was dismissed by the trial Court due to his failure to produce the evidence, vide order dated 24-4-2002. Application for restoration of said suit filed by the respondent No.1 was also dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 22-1-2004, which order was assailed before Additional District Judge Sanghar in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2004, which is still pending.
6. After judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioners in F.C. Suit No.93 of 1998, the respondent No.1 filed an application under section 12(2) and C.P.C. And application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. On 24-4-1999 and 6-5-1999 and 6-5-1999 respectively before the trial Court, which were rejected by the trial Court by a single order dated 9-9-1999.
7. From the pleadings, it appears that order dated 9-9-1999 was challenged by the respondent No.1 his legal heirs through Civil Revision No.13 of 1999. Vide order dated 30-7-2007, the learned Additional District Judge Sanghar allowed the Civil Revision and set aside the order dated -9-9-1999 passed by Senior Civil Judge Khipro in following terms:--- "Considering the above facts and circumstances, let the matter be remanded to learned trial Court with the directions to dispose of the application of applicant Gul Muhammad filed on 6-5-1999 under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Thus the matter is remanded to trial Court with the directions to hear the parties and provide full opportunities to them, so that both sides may defend their rights. The Revision Application is allowed with no order as to costs. Order dated 9-9-1999 passed by Senior Civil Judge Khipro is set aside."
8. It is inter alia contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed against settled principles of law, facts and equity. The respondent No.1 moved such applications with ulterior motive and mala fide intention. They were aware about the pendency of the suit, during pendency of F.C. Suit No.93 of 1998, the respondent No.1 filed F.C. Suit No.16 of 1999 in respect of subject-matter of F.C. Suit No.93 of 1998 but after passing Judgment and Decree, the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. And under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Were moved with sole object to linger on the matter for indefinite period as well as to defeat the judgment and decree passed by the competent Court of law. He further contended that the impugned order passed by, the learned Additional District Judge, Sanghar is not maintainable and liable to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Additional Advocate General Sindh conceded the above legal position that after disposal of the suit, an application for joining the parties in the suit cannot be entertained.
10. From the pleadings it appears that application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. Was filed after judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the petitioners. The respondent No.1 had also filed F.C. Suit No.16 of 1999 before the same Court in respect of same property but he did not move any application before the trial Court for joining him as defendant in F.C. Suit No.93 of 1998. The above conduct of the respondent No.1 reflects that the intentionally and deliberately remained mum and had waited for final decision in he suit, The impugned order passed by learned Additional District Judge Sanghar reflects that same has been passed in mechanical manner without taking into consideration the very important aspect of the case that the judgment and decree had been passed and suit was finally disposed of and the Court has become functus officio, therefore, remanding the case for hearing of the application by impugned order was uncalled for. Therefore, reason for remanding the case for hearing of the application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. With erroneous and such an application could not be entertained by the trial Court after it has given judgment and decree.
11. The petition, for the aforesaid reasons, was allowed by our short order dated 12-11-2009.