' A suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act was dismissed by the learned trial Court due to failure of the respondent/plaintiff to produce evidence. This decree of dismissal was, however, set aside in appeal by the learned District Judge vide order dated 3-3-1980. Ashiq Hussain and others, petitioners/defendants have challenged this judgment passed in appeal in this revision petition on the ground that no appeal lies against decree passed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that appeal is, not available against a decree passed under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act but adds that revision jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction may not be allowed to be invoked as the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants conceded before the learned District Judge that another opportunity of reasonable duration may be granted to the plaintiff/respondent for adducing evidence. Learned counsel has filed an affidavit of the learned counsel whose concession stands recorded. In the affidavit, learned counsel has stated that he did not concede that another opportunity be given to the appellant/respondent. Learned counsel further added that the concession is otherwise meaningless and consent cannot confer jurisdiction where there is none. He also submitted that as per assertions of the respondent/plaintiff the dispossession occurred in violation of the injunction order passed in pending suit and that the said violation was brought to the notice of the said learned trial Court. Both the learned counsel further agree that the said application complaining violation of the injunction order is still pending and that the parties can prosecute the said application and obtain necessary relief and that regular suit is also available to the plaintiff respondent .
3. In view of above, no useful purpose will be served by prosecuting the present litigation. The appeal, admittedly, was incompetent and the impugned order as such was nothing but a nullity in law. The impugned order, as such is not binding on the learned trial Court as is held in Muhammad Umar Khan v. Muhammad Asif and others PLD 1964 Pesh.
157. In the circumstances noted above, I am not inclined to go into the merits of the order dated 9- 12-1979 whereby the learned trial Court dismissed the suit for lack of evidence as alternate remedy is available by way of regular suit for establishing title and recovering possession and as the complainant regarding violation of the injunction order is also pending.
4. With the above observations, this petition stands disposed of.
' No order as to costs.