' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--Two Civil Revisions filed by the Petitioner in the Sind High Court, one against the dismissal of his own suit and the other against the decree granted in the suit of the opponents; failed on 14-4-1987. Hence these two petitions against that consolidated rejection order.
2. There was a precedent litigation between the parties over the disputed property which is flat tenements Nos. Gil, G/2 (ground floor) of property hearing No.-R.S. 2/39-IV-B/163, situated at Jiean Street Ramswa mi, Karachi. It ended by a decision of this Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. K-158 of 1973, the Court observing as hereunder:- "The petitioner contested the transfer in favour of respondent No. 2 and claimed to have purchased tenements Nos. G/1 and G/2 in a public auction. The claim was not supported by Departmental Record. Neither public notice of auction, nor the bid sheet, nor confirmation of sale of G/1 and G/2 in favour of the petitioner were forthcoming. Nor P.T.O. Or P.T.D. Were issued on the basis of the alleged sale by auction in favour of the petitioner. Lie did not possess even a receipt showing payment of the sale price. On the contrary a P.T.O. And P.T.D. Of G/1 and G/2 were issued in the name of respondent No. 2 and he has, paid the evaluation price of both the tenements.
' In the circumstances the High Court has ruled out the claim of the petitioner and we fully agree with the view.
3. The same year the respondent No. 1 filed a civil Suit (No. 1142 of 1974) against the petitioner in respect of the same property. The petitioner also filed the same year a Civil Suit (No. 2478 of 1974) against respondent No. The disputed property in both the suits was the same.The contests centred round the question of their transfer and the validity and genuineness of the transfer documents
4. The controversy on merits was decided in the Trial Court by a reference to the earlier decisions as would appear from the following findings:- "Thus, the orders for transfer of property in favour of the defendant have acquired not only finality but even the seal of correctness by the highest Court of this Country. From the evidence and documents on record it is clear that the plaintiff suit is not only hit with the other provisions of law, but also hit barred by res judicata, therefore, my findings on issues Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 is in affirmative."
5 The appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree of the lower Court in the following wards:- "The allegation that the file was traced-out by the Settlement Department in the years 1974 or any subsequent date have got no value now as the appellant deliberately not made the Settlement Department as one of the respondent to deny or confirm his -these allegations. Even otherwise, if the file was traced-out as per Ex. 6/C, in the year 1974 then the question arises as to what prevented the Settlement Department from submitting it before the Supreme Court of Pakistan where the matter was heard and decided on 15-2-1974. This shows that with some ulterior motive this file was not brought before the highest Court of Pakistan; hence at this stage I cannot allow the appellant to come with a plea that his file was traced out by the Settlement Authorities and that the respondent No. 2 has got transferred the tenement Nos. G/1 and (i/2 in his favour by misrepresentation and fraud."
6. The High Court in the impugned judgment while concurring observed as hercundci "The only grievance of the learned counsel for the applicant is that at the time the proceedings were finally disposed of by the Supreme Court fraud was not known to the petitioner and he came to know of it subsequently. However, neither the evidence led by the petitioner nor the pleadings before the Courts below made out the particulars of the fraud which vitiated the orders passed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. No case for interference is made out."
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner assailing the concurrent judgments the Courts had advanced the same ground which finds mention in every one of them and has been dealt with.
8. The forgeries alleged and also the fabrication, have not been found established. In his own suit the Petitioner had to implead Settlement Department if at all it was his case that the Settlement Record had been fabricated and forged to create an undesired entitlement of the respondent.
Apart from that as the discovery of the new material, if at all there is any, was in the same year when this Court gave a decision on the controversy, it was all the more necessary that the petitioner should have got decision re-opened instead of attempting to undo the finality of that judgment, by starting another round.
9. We find that no case is made out and leave to appeal is refused.