' MUHAMMAD .ILYAS,' MEMBER (JUDICIAL-III) . This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 31.03.2011, passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan whereby he accepted application of the present respondents for restoration of the appeal.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that Rana Imtiaz Hussain, present respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy District Officer (Revenue), Shujabad against the mutation No, 361, dated 28.02.2000 which was dismissed on 02.03.2006. Respondent No, 1 filed an appeal against said order and this appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 27.10.2007. However, Rana Imtiaz Khan submitted an application on 30.10.2007 for restoration of his appeal but simultaneously, on 06.12.2008, the present respondents submitted an application for withdrawal of the appeal.
Thereafter, the present respondents filed an application for restoration of the said appeal which was accepted by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan on 31.03.2011.. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that after the death of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner inheritance. Mutation No, 7, dated 30.05.1974 was sanctioned in favour of legal heirs of the deceased. Muhammad Rafiq challenged that mutation through appeal before the Assistant Commissioner which was dismissed on _30.11.1974. However, the revision petition was accepted. By the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division and the A.C. Was directed to decide the case afresh who further remanded the case to the Tehsildar. However, lmtiaz Hussain, respondent No, 1 tiled a civil suit to the effect that Muhammad Rafiq was not son of Mumtaz Hussain deceased.
However, the said suit was dismissed on 30 10.1998 with the observation that Muhammad Rafiq is son of Mumtaz Hussain and he legally inherited his due share of inheritance. The appeal filed against the order dated 30.10.1998 was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Shujabad vide order dated 15.01.2000 and the revision petition filed against that order was dismissed by the High Court, Multan Bench on 8.2.2000. However, the mutation No, 361, dated 28.02.2000 was sanctioned in compliance with the Civil Court decree. The respondent No, 1 assailed the said mutation in the Court of Deputy- District Officer (Revenue) through appeal which was dismissed on 2.3.2006. The impugned orders are against the law and facts of the case. During pendency of the appeal, the respondent No, 1 transferred his share to one ex-MPA through registered sale-deed. Finally, it was prayed that the revision petition may be accepted."5. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the inheritance No,
7. Bated 30.04.1974 was sanctioned regarding inheritance of Rana Mumtaz Hussain and the present petitioner obtained ex parte Civil Court decree dated 30.10.1998 and the mutation No, 361, dated 28.02.2000 was got sanctioned. The respondents assailed that order before the Executive District Officer (Revenue) through appeal which was dismissed on 2.3.2006. Appeal of the respondents before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan which was dismissed due to non-prosecution on 27.10.2007. The respondent No, 1 filed an application for restoration of the same 6 However, the respondent No, 1 submitted an on between the parties, therefore, the appeal be filed for the time being and in case the compromise was not effected, then the respondents shall be entitled to get restore the said appeal. The statement of the respondents in this behalf was got recorded on 6.2.2008 and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. As the compromise could not be effected therefore, the respondents No, 1 submitted an application for restoration of the appeal which was restored on 31.03.2011 by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan strictly in accordance with law. While concluding the arguments it was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through record of the case and impugned orders as well On examination of the record, it has transpired that at the moment controversy between the parties is based on the sole issue that whether an appeal decided as dismissed can be withdrawn; can be restored before and the same Court that dismissed the appeal on its own or not Basically on a decree dated.
30.10.1998 passed by the Civil Court the mutation No, 361 dated 28.02.2000 was sanctioned. On the civil side the matter went upto High court Multan Bench. Multan which was apparently decided in favour of the present petitioner The respondent No, 1 assailed the said mutation before the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) which was dismissed on 02.03.2006. {{BLUR PAGE}}
8. The respondents further challenged that order before the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan The appeal was dismissed in default on 27 10 2007 The respondent No, 1 filed an application for restoration of the same The respondent No 1 further submitted :Jr application before the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Multan that he wanted to withdraw the appeal because of the prospects of a compromise On 06 02 2008, the appeal therefore was dismissed as withdrawn. Then respondent 1 again submitted an application for restoration of the -Withdrawn appeal which was accepted by the Executive tistriCt Officer (Revenue), Multan and the case was restored on 31.03.20'11 without any jurisdiction and competence. 4-tence the present revision petition No, 616/2011 is accepted:,
9. -BeCause once a case is decided/dismissed by owl' of COMpetent jurisdiction. No matter what the same , case cant-IOf:be- restored by the same court. A decided case cannot be restored' or reopened by the same Court as that CpUrt aUtomatically beComes functus officio. Notwithstanding the extraneous pressures the Court in this case cannot possibly reimbibe the jurisdiction to restart a decided case. The lower Court had wrongly considered the application for -restoratiorPOf appeal as "petition for restoration of the application Of restoration of appeal" in its order dated atoa 2611 totally misconstruing the fact which is on record"- olAhe.File as well as submitted by the parties before the Ic4er Court is ,against law.And facts due to this reason the orcfer dated 31.03:2011 is set aside.
10. The respondent- No, 1 in the application for restorationOf appear before the lower Court had not prayed about' -the restoration of the application of restoration of appeal The respondent: No '1 had only prayed just restoration of ,,appearte the view of the lower Court about restoong the aPpliCation fOr'restoration of appeal and also restore the original appeal is ,totally misuse of his powers and, law: -No ,party, should be allowed to misuse the indulgence concession shown by the Court so as to make the whole system an abuse of process of law. The process of law: which had been adopted by the lower Court by the shape of accepting the application for restoration of appeal is not according to law but also against the natural justice and against taw and facts. {{BLUR PAGE}} 11 'The reason which has been mentioned by the lower Court that the record shows that original matter in the appear relates to the inheritance of the property and valuable right 'of both the parties are involved is totally baseless because the decision of Civil Court about the inheritance of Mumtaz Hussain had been finalized upto Hon'able Supreme Court. In of the decision of Civil Court upto Supreme Court Muhammad Rafique has been, declared son of Mumtaz Hussain and as well as has right to inherit share of Mumtaz Hussain like as son.
12. So this question of inheritance has already been decided before the Civil Court upto Hon'able High Court so the lower Court had not perused the record carefully and passed the impugned order dated 31.03,2011 at back of the record and adopting an illegal manner by accepting the application of restoration of appeal. The application for restoration of appeal which has been filed by respondent No, 1 not only was against law and facts but as well as based on fabricated story it is well-settled law that once a Court finally adjudicate the matter then it becomes functus officio so the lower Court has no right to restore the appeal and previous application for restoration of appeal.
13. On the basis of the arguments and in the preceding paragraphs, the revision is accepted and the impugned order dated 31.03.2011 passed by the Executive District Officer (Revenue), Multan is set aside being without merit and cogence. ROR accepted.