CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.---Learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs contends that the petitioners/ plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration against the respondents whereby the petitioners/ plaintiffs challenged the mutation No.597 dated 3-12-1995 and also order dated 12-12-2007 passed by the Deputy District A Officer (Revenue), Gujranwala being illegal, against the law and ineffective on the rights of the petitioners/plaintiffs. The petitioners also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. And prayed that till the decision of the suit, ad interim injunction be granted to the petitioners/plaintiffs.
2. At the same time, the respondents/ defendants filed an application under Order B VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. With the request that the plaint of the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs be rejected on the ground that already matter between the parties in respect of suit land has been finally determined in favour of the respondents/defendants. The learned trial Court declined the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.
3. The petitioners/plaintiffs assailed the order of learned trial Court in appeal and prayed that till the final decision of the case, interim injunction be granted, the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala who instead of deciding the said matter, dismissed the suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs hence, the civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs contends that the impugned order is against the law and facts. The learned Appellate Court have exceeded from his jurisdiction. The impugned order is a nullity in the eye of law because the learned Appellate Court dismissed the suit when the matter before him was a mere an appeal for C grant of interim injunction, therefore, the impugned order be declared as null and void, suit be restored and be remanded back to the learned trial Court for adjudication on the merits. The learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has relied on 1996 CLC 892.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has vehemently opposed the civil revision and contended that Niaz Muhammad the predecessor in interest of the respondents/ defendants purchased the suit land measuring 199 Kanals vide sale-deed registered on 10-8-1963 and thereafter the ownership of respondents was duly incorporated in the Revenue Record vide mutation No.275 dated 1-12-1964.
6. Thereafter the respondents/ defendants predecessor filed a suit for possession on 11-9-1975, which was decreed in their favour against the petitioners/plaintiffs on 16-2-1981. The petitioners filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 29-10-1984. Thereafter the petitioners instead of approaching the High Court filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which was also dismissed on 25-5-1989. So far execution of decree for possession, the respondents filed an execution petition on 11-6-1989. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed objections against the execution petition which were turned down by the competent Court of law/executing Court on 7-7-1999 and thereafter the possession of the land was delivered to the respondents/defendants vide warrants dakhal dated 3-12-1999 and on the basis of warrants dakhal, the mutation No.597 was attested in favour of the respondents/defendants.
7. That the entire process was completed in favour of respondents by the Civil Court, thereafter despite the fact that mutation No.597 was attested on the basis of final judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, the petitioners/plaintifs with mala fide intention approached to revenue hierarchy and challenged mutation No.597 before the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), who cancelled the application of the petitioners on 12-12-2007. Against this order, the petitioners filed an appeal, which was also dismissed on 26-2-2008. Thereafter the petitioners did not approach the Board of Revenue and mutation No.597 against attained finality in the second round of litigation between the parties.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants pointed out that this is the third round of litigation between the same parties in respect of the same land, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is in accordance with law. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. Admittedly, the land in dispute is the same and the parentage of the petitioners/plaintiffs is the same who challenged earlier in the first round of litigation. Here the important point is that whether the Appellate Court while deciding the application for interim injunction can reject the plaint of the suit or not. Learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has relied on 2006 M LD 810. A perusal of section 107(2) of the C.P.C. Provides the subject as aforesaid, the Appellate Court shall have the same powers and shall perform as nearly as may be the same D duties as are conferred and imposed by this Code on Court of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein which entrust the powers of the trial Court upon the Appellate Court and further section 11, C.P.C. Which is re-produced as under:--- "Res Judicata. No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and, substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court."
11. Section 107(2) and section 11, C.P.C. Empower the Appellate Court to dismiss a suit or reject the plaint of a suit in such like matters.
12. The provisions of section 11, C.P.C. Are fully applicable in the instant E suit. Similarly, section 107(2) delegates the powers upon the trial Court. Another aspect which was ignored by both the learned Courts below is the question of limitation. The petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the mutation No. 597, dated 3-12-1995 in the suit filed on 21-1-2008 which is F also barred by limitation because the litigation between the parties was started in the year, 1963 when Niaz Muhammad the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/ defendants purchased the suit land. The period of limitation for filing a suit for G declaration is six years while the instant suit is filed after lapse of more than 12 years, which is badly barred by time. Particularly when the petitioner's side was a party to the litigation.
13. Resultantly, this Court does not see any illegality in the impugned judgments. Civil revision is without merits, no interference is called for. .