' Hashmal Khan petitioner filed the present suit for a declaration with consequential relief in the form of injunction against Umaid Khan etc. Respondents which was dealt with by Civil Judge and plaint rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. In view of the provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. The order was passed as far back as 27-7-1979. The appeal filed by Hashmal Khan failed in the Court of the Additional District Judge on 20-12-1979. So, the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record gone through with their help.
3. It is an admitted fact that the suit land belonged to Umaid Khan, Abdul Shakoor, Mst. Majeedan (deceased), Mst. Zubaida and Mst. Islami daughters of Mst. Reheemee, vide registered sale-deed dated 30-5-1978. It was sold by Umaid Khan on his behalf as well as on behalf of his minor sons Abdul Shakoor etc. And by Badloo Khan defendant No,6 as the attorney of Mst. Majidan, Mst.
Zubaida and Mst. Islami defendants Nos.3 to 5 in favour of Pappa defendant No,7.
4. Hashmal Khan petitioner firstly filed civil suit on 28-5-1978 against Umaid Khan, Badloo and Pappay Khan and his (Pappay Khan's) sons Qamru, Noor Din and Hand for an injunction restraining them from interfering with his possession as owner of the suit land or to receive rent of the same from him. This suit was still pending when the present suit was filed on 25-7-1978 for a declaration that Ole sale in favour of Pappay Khan was ineffective against his rights, he having already purchased it and for an injunction restraining them from interfering with the same. The cause of action, therefore, was the execution of the sale-deed by Umaid Khan and Badloo Khan as an attorney in favour of Pappay Khan as it was in derogation of rights of Hashmal Khan who claims to have already purchased it. He only sued for injunction and did not sue for a declaration that the sale in favour of Pappay Khan was ineffective against his rights nor for the cancellation of the sale- deed. Thus, both the Courts below correctly concluded that the main relief i.e, declaration having been leftover in the earlier suit filed on 28-5-1978 and no permission to relinquish a part of the relief having been obtained, the second suit' in view of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. Was not competent. The orders of the two Courts below are, therefore, unexceptionable. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.