' Herein petitioners were arrayed as some of the defendants in a civil suit filed by G hulam Muhammad respondent No,1 in the Civil Court at Lahore. Suit was contested and it came to be dismissed on 6-12-1987 with a finding adverse to the plaintiff reached under issue No,4 to the effect that since he was not in possession of the land, therefore, he was bound under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act to have sued for possession of the land which he had not done, therefore his suit is not proper in its form.
' Appeal there against filed by the plaintiff was heard by a learned Additional District Judge who set aside the trial Court's finding under issue No,4 with the conclusion that the possession of the land was held by the plaintiff. Consequently, by his judgment dated 24-9-1988, he accepted the appeal to the extent of issue No,4 alone but dismissed it as regards the remaining issues with the consequence that the trial Court's decree of dismissal of suit of the plaintiff remained undisturbed.
2. In Civil Revision No,1947/D of 1988, plaintiff has already thrown challenge to the decree of dismissal of his suit. Subsequent thereto, three of the defendants, namely, Mst. Asma Begum and her two children have filed this revision petition on 9-1-1989 for bringing under attack the findings recorded in the appeal below under issue No,4.
3. Decrees of two Courts below are in favour of the petitioners who cannot be said to have been aggrieved thereby and have actually not herein assailed any of the decrees passed below. The prayer herein made reads as under:- "The finding of the learned Additional District Judge on issue No,4 may kindly be set aside and that of the learned Civil Judge as given by him in his judgment and decree dated 6-12-1987, may kindly be restored."
4. There is no doubt that by virtue of the principle underlying the enactment of Rule 22 of Order XLI C.P.C., the petitioners herein will be able to support the decree of dismissal of suit passed in their favour on even the ground decided against them under issue No,4.
5. This revision-petition happens to thus be a mere superfluity. It is accordingly dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs hereof.