RAZA AHMAD KHAN, J.--Gohar Rehman plaintiff petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration to the effect that he is `hissadar' owner of the land bearing Khasra No.316/428 and No.5211 measuring 6 kanals 8 marlas situated in the area of Buffa Lughumani-Lahari, Tehsil and District Mansehra vide register 'haqdaran-e-zamin' for the year 1965-66 and that the entry in the Revenue record in the name of defendant No.l, as 'hissadar' owner, is wrong and without any effect to the interest of the plaintiff.
2. The defendants-respondents Nos.l and 2 contested the suit and finding the parties at variance on a number of issues, the learned Civil Judge, Manschra recorded such evidence as adduced before him by the parties but ulitmately dismissed the suit vide his judgment dated 3-9-1984.
3. The plaintiff-petitioner's efforts with the appellate Court also proved abortive inasmuch as the appeal filed by him against the judgment of the learned trial Court was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mansehra vide his judgment dated 17-11-1985.
4. The petitioners then riled a revision petition in this Court directed against the judgment of both the learned trial Court as well as the appellate Court with a prayer for setting them aside and granting him the declaration sought for in the suit by decreeing the same in his favour. The grounds taken and the submission made in support thereof at the revisional stage did not find favour with the learned Single Judge of this Court and the revision petition was dismissed by him vide his order dated I1-10-1988 in limine.
5. The petitioner now has invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan with the prayer:- "that by accepting/granting this writ petition, the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts, i.e. No.459/1 of Civil Judge, Mansehra No.46/13 of District Judge, Mansehra and C.R. No. 32/86 of this Honourable Court, be set aside, annulled, and quashed and Suit No.459/1 of 1982 of Civil Judge Mansehra be decreed with costs throughout."
6. We have heard Mr. Nazir Ahmad Lughmani, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and at the very outset we found it amazing and astonishing as to how the learned counsel thought it fit to move this writ petition in clear violation of sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution whereby while defining the term "person" appearing in the Article, the Supreme Court and a High Court as also a Tribunal established under a law relating to the Armed Forces of Pakistan have been specifically excluded from its operation. It would have been another A matter if the learned single Judge had passed the impugned revisional order in his capacity other than a Judge of this Court, or acted as a Tribunal but his order is the judgment of this Court and to call it in question in the writ petition seeking declaration to set it aside in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, in face of sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution, prima facie seems to be not only extremely misconceived but also touching the brims of the contempt of thisCourt.
7. In this context of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that no writ can be issued against a High Court much less the same High Court, in matter of a judgment given by it in regular proceedings under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that sub-Article (5) of Article 199 of the Constitution clearly bars the same. We are also constrained to observe that filing of this writ petition cannot but be held as a piece of most frivolous litigation and we disapprove and deprecate this tendency with all the force at our command.
8. Since we have already found the writ petition in its inception as incompetent, we do not deem it necessary to go into the merits of the case.
9. Viewed the matter in the perspective of the foregoing discussion, we find, this writ petition as misconceived, devoid of any merits and, above all, frivolous and resultantly dismiss it in limine.