1. ' SYED SAJJAD HASSAN SHAH, J.---Muhammad Rauf and seven others have challenged the judgment and order dated 22-4-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge-III, Charsadda, whereby, the appeal was partially accepted and judgment and order dated 3-9-2007 passed by learned Civil Judge was set aside to the extent of relief Alif of the plaint.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that:-- ' Muhammad Rauf, plaintiff/petitioner and others have sought a decree for declaration in respect of the property detail given in the heading of the plaint on the strength of sale-deed dated 8-12- 1990 and have challenged the Mutation No, 3184 dated 27-8-2003 as being against law, facts and collusive, is liable to be cancelled. Likewise, decree for perpetual injunction and possession has also been prayed for. During the trial an application moved for rejection of plaint by the respondents.
3. Learned trial Court has refused to reject the plaint. However, learned appellate court while partially accepting the appeal has passed the order of rejection of plaint and now the same has been challenged in the present revision petition.
4. ' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners contended that partial rejection of plaint is not permissible under the law, moreso, the defendants/respondents has not produced the original record or atleast attested copies of earlier litigatioh on the basis of which he has sought the rejection of plaint but certain photostat copies of certain court proceedings have been produced.
5. Learned counsel further contended that learned trial court has legally rejected the application, whereas, the learned appellate court illegally accepted the appeal to the extent of relief Alif pertaining to seeking, the decree for declaration, thus passed order of partial rejection of the plaint.
6. ' Learned counsel for the respondents contended that he has filed appeal/revision petition to challenge the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, the learned appellate court decided the same as appeal, however, not treated as revision, because the order of rejection of application is not made an appealable and, therefore, the present revision petition would be considered as second revision petition as the previous appeal revision would be treated as the first revision petition, he, therefore, prayed that the instant revision petition may be rejected.
7. ' Since the learned trial Court has rejected the application, as the plaint was not suffering from any legal defect. In appeal/revision filed by the respondents, the learned court of appeal/revision partially rejected plaint to the extent of relief Alif. Although the impugned order is apparently unlawful or having no backing of law as learned appellate/revisional court has no power to partially reject the plaint.
8. ' Be that as it may, learned counsel for respondent has also conceded that learned Additional District Judge is not legally authorized to pass partial order of rejection of plaint. But the present petition is second revision petition as the first was entertained and decided by the learned appellate court. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on precedent case titled Mst.
9. Noor Jehan v. Mst. Roshan Jehan and others reported in 1994 SCM R 2265, the relevant head note re produced as under:-- "O. IX, R.3---Dismissal of suit for non-appearance of parties---Application for restoration of suit was dismissed by trial Court---District Judge in appeal (although no appeal is provided against such order), restored the suit---High Court set aside order of restoration in exercise of revisional jurisdiction--Validity---Appeal filed by plaintiff was not maintainable, yet District Judge was authorized under 5.115, C.P.C. To send for the record and examine the correctness of order of trial Court--- Order passed by District Judge (in restoring suit) could be treated as a revisional order precluding further interference by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction---Order passed by High Court in dismissing application for restoration of suit as also dismissal of suit suffered from total lack of jurisdiction/authority---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal---Judgment of High Court was set aside and that of District Judge restored by Supreme Court."
10. In view of the above facts and precedent law, the present petition being second revision petitioner is not maintainable, same is dismissed and judgment and order of learned appellate court is maintained with no order as to cost.