1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.--- The plaintiffs' side (in his suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that they were co-owners in possession of the suit property, the contesting defendants were wrongly entered as owners in the revenue papers) having lost the case throughout up to the dismissal of civil revision by the High Court, have called in question the revisional order through this leave to appeal petition.
2. Learned counsel has tried to meet the reasons for which the petitioners have failed, namely, that the petitioners' suit was barred by constructive res judicata as also by the provisions of Rule 2 of Order 11, C.P.C., by contending that the evidence has not been properly read. He also took us through the alleged sale documents relating to 1895 and others which also related to the period near the end of the last century. He also took us through some of the depositions recorded in the legal proceedings conducted during the first quarter of present century. Notwithstanding the same he has not been able to satisfy us that the previous cases/decisions in this matter did not operate as res judicata. Otherwise too we are of the view that even if the question of constructive res judicata is looked at from the petitioners' point of view, this petition would not succeed on that hypothesis either. If the questions raised in the present litigation were raised and decided previously, the present litigation would be barred by res judicata, and in the circumstances of the case if the subject-matter of the present litigation was not brought within the net of the previous litigation, Order Il, Rule 2, C.P.C. Would be a bar. Looked at from whatever angle this petition fails and the leave to appeal is accordingly refused.