1. ' USMAN Au SHAH, C. J.-This writ petition has arisen in the following circumstances Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 herein brought suit for declaration that they are entitled to irrigate their lands from the Water Spring of village Wali, District Dir. By way of consequential relief they sought injunction restraining the petitioner not to block irrigating of their lands from the water spring. The case was referred by the Assistant Commissioner Taimargare to Qazi for Shari decision. The Qazi recorded evidence according to which the respondents were using water from the spring for irrigating their lands. He, therefore, granted award in favour of the respondents. The Assistant Commissioner agreed with the award and decreed the claim of the respondents, vide his order dated 6-7-1960.
2. The petitioner preferred appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner who dismissed his appeal, vide his order dated 4-10-1981. .Thereafter, his revision application before the Additional Secretary Home, N.-W. F. P. Also failed having been dismissed by order dated 3-5-1984. Hence this writ petition.
3. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that according to .DATA Regulation II of 1975, this case-could not be referred to Qazi for Shari decision. His submission, therefore, is that as the proceedings were illegal, all the orders passed by the functionaries would ipso facto lose legal effect and would be without jurisdiction. We regret to subscribe' to the contention of the learned counsel in the circumstances of the present case. Even otherwise, there is nothing in the Regulation by way of explicit or implicit indication that there shall be bar on the Shari adjudication of the dispute of civil nature between the parties through Qazi. The learned counsel concedes that the parties were not opposed to Shari decision of the dispute between them. Thus, as the parties joined issues4 with each other for decision before Qazi and none of them had raised a little thumb to challenge the proceedings before the Qazi, the decision of Qazi would, therefore, be binding on them unless it is shown that the decision is not based on evidence or the Qazi had refused any party a chance of supporting his claim by evidence. This is not the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had opposed the claim of the respondents but he was unable to prove that the respondents were not entitled to irrigate their lands from the water spring. We observe that if the parties in a case submit themselve before the functionaries for the resolution of the dispute between them and the decision in such case assumed finality, it cannot be questioned by the affected party before this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. This writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, seems to us to error on the side of frivolity. Once a case is contested by the parties before the functionaries and in support of their claim they have adduced evidence and finally a decision is made, the affected party cannot be allowed to challenge in writ jurisdiction the orders of the functionaries on the ground that as they had followed different procedure in adjudicating upon the dispute between them, their orders would be illegal and without jurisdiction.
4. If writ petitions on the question of jurisdiction in the like cases are taken up for consideration, it will open a floodgate of writ petitions to be piled up in this Court.
5. ' As a result, this writ petition is dismissed with costs.