KHADIM HUSSAIN M. SHAIKH, J.---The captioned Revision Application is directed against Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shandadpur , dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 2015 re: Ghulam Nabi since deceased through his L.Rs v. Noor Muhammad and others filed against order and decree dated 28.05.2015, passed by learned Senior . Civil Judge Shandadpur , rejecting the plaint of F.C. Suit No.117 of 2014 re: Ghulam Nabi through his L.Rs v. Noor Muhammad and others, under Order VII, Rule 1 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure [Act-V 1908] ["the code"].
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that Malba of house constructed on the Government plot admeasuring area 3256 square feet situated near Mai Sohni Colony Shandadpur , was allegedly purchased by late Ghulam Nabi Solangi, the predecessor-in- interest of the plaintif fs ["the applicants "] from Hazoor Bux and Lal Bux Jamali, through sale agreement, which was reduced into writing on non-judicial paper bearing Serial No. 1050, dated 26.11.1998 A between the sellers and the purchasers, in presence of witnesses, after receivin g the whole sale consideration amount of Rs.80,000/- by the alleged sellers from deceased Ghulam Nabi Solangi, who along with his family members was allegedly residing in the aforesaid property and after his death, the applicants being his legal heirs are allegedly residing in the said property . A small private street of 12-feet on northern side going towards the house of the applicants, which was closed. The main entrance of the house of the applicants is in the said small street since long, which was an exclusive use of the applicants. About one year prior to filing of the suit, when deceased Ghulam Nabi Solangi was alive, the respondents Nos.1 to 7 in collusion with each other all of sudden with ulterior motives, illegally , and forcibly affixed new door / gate of their house on its back side in the said small private street in front of the house of the applicants, despite objection and protest of deceased Ghulam Nabi. The respondents Nos.1 to 7, who are dangerous having relations with criminal and dacoits made quarrel and caused serious injuries to the applicant party including deceased Ghulam Nabi Solangi, hence FIR No.139 of 2013, under sections 506(2), 337-1 1(2), A-(i), F-(i), 147, 148, 149, 504, P.P.C. at Police Station City Shandadpur was lodged against them. Subsequently , late Ghulam Nabi and Muhammad Saleh had filed F.C. Suit No.06 of 2014 re: Ghulam Nabi Solangi and another v. Government of Sindh and others, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Shandadpur , but during pendency of the above suit Ghulam Nabi died on 15.09.2014. Latter his death, the above suit due to some technical faults was withdrawn with permission to file-fresh suit on 23.10.2014. Later on, the applicants through Muhalla peoples approached the respondents Nos.1 to 7 restraining them from using the aforesaid small private street and also for removal of the door/gate in dispute affixed in front of the main entrance of the house of the applicants, but the respondents Nos.1 to 7 refused to do so. Thereafter , the applicants had filed the subject suit. On service of summons, the respondents Nos.1, 3, 5 to 7 filed application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Shandadpur after hearing the parties' counsel rejected the plaint of the subject suit vide order and decree dated 28.5.2015, which were appealed against in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2015, re: Ghulam Nabi through his L.Rs v. Noor Muhammad and others, that has been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Shandadpur vide impugned Judgment and Decree dated 24.02.2016. Hence this revision application.
3. The learned counsel for the applicants has mainly contended that the learned Trial Court without allowing the parties to adduce evidence for and against their respective claims and pleadings, had rejected the plaint of the subject suit; that the learned Appellate Court also without considering such aspects of the case dismissed the appeal of the applicants filed against the rejection of the plaint of their suit; and, that the impugned order and decree dated 28.5.2015, passed by the learned Trial Court, rejecting the plaint of the applicants' suit and the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 24.2.2016, passed by the learned Appellate Court, dismissing their appeal are illegal. The learned counsel prays that the case may be remanded to the learned Trial Court for decision on merits after allowing the parties to adduce their evidence for and against their respective claims and opportunity of hearing. None is present for the respondents to address arguments on their behalf.
4. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants and have gone through the material brought on the record.
5. From a perusal of the material brought on the record it would be seen that Ghulam Nabi Solangi, the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants had earlier filed suit being IIIRD Class Suit No.12 of 1999 for declaration, perpetual injunction, mandatory injunction and damages in the learned Court of Civil Judge, Shandadpur , on the same cause of action against the same parties over the same subject matter , later on that suit was dismissed as withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit vide order dated 09.03.2000, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Shandadpur; after fourteen (14) years of the withdrawal of the earlier IIIrd Class suit, Ghulam Nabi and Muhammad Saleh had filed First Class Suit No.06 of 2014 only for mandatory injunction in the learned Court of Senior Civil Judge, Shandadpur , over the same subject matter on the same cause of action and against the same parties, but that suit was also dismissed as withdrawn on 22.10.2014; a perusal of order dated 09.03.2000 and order dated 22.10.2014, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Shandadpur . and learned Senior Civil Judge, Shandadpur , in Bird Class Suit No.12 of 1999 and F.C. Suit No.06 of 2014 respectively on the withdrawal statements, it would be seen that technical faults were not specifically shown for withdrawal of the earlier suits with permissions to file fresh ones. Then the applicants filed the subject 3rd Suit being F.C. Suit No.117 of 2017 for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction; in paragraph-2 of the plaint, the applicants claim that Malba of the house constructed on the Government plot admeasuring 3256 Sq. Feet situated near Mai Sohni Shandadpur , was allegedly purchased by late Ghulam Nabi Solangi. the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants from Huzoor Bux and Lal Bux Jamali, through sale agreement dated 26.11.1998, and the applican ts have sought declaration with consequential relief on the basis of sale agreement dated 26.11.1998 that too relating only to the alleged Malba on the Government plot, which needless to say did not confer any right or title in favour of late Ghulam Nabi Solangi, the predecessor-in-interest of the applicants over the suit property . Which is admittedly Government plot, therefore, the applicants have no vested right over the Government property in terms of section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, I am of the considered view that the subject suit filed after fifteen (15) years of withdrawal of the First Suit that is IIIrd Class Suit No.12 of 1999 withdrawn on 09.03.2000 with permission to file fresh on the ground of technical faults and that too after filing of the second suit that is F.C. Suit No.06 of 2014 and withdrawal thereof filed after fourteen (14) years of the withdrawal of first aforesaid Bird Class Suit No. 12 of 1999 on the same cause of action, over the same subject matter , and between the same parties, on all counts was not maintainable and, thus the plaint of the subject suit that is F.C. Suit No.117 of 2015, was liable to be rejected. The learned Trial Court by rejecting the plaint vide order and decree dated 28.05.2015 and the learned Appellate Court by dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.22 of 2015, filed against the aforesaid order and decree, rejecting the plaint, vide impugn ed Judgment and Decree dated 24.02. 2016, have not committed any illegality and the impugned order . Judgment and Decrees, passed by both the learned Courts below , which are apt to the facts, circumstances and Law, suffering from no illegality or any jurisdictional defect do not call for any interference. The learned Advocate for the applicants has also not been able to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect, attracting exercise of jurisdiction under the provisions of section 115 of the Code. Therefore, this revision application having no substance deserves to be dismissed. These are the reasons of short order announced by me on 12.04.2019 whereby this revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.