1. ' Petitioner was a Sub-Engineer in the Auqaf Department of Government of Punjab. He tendered his resignation from service. His resignation was accepted on 3-74977, by Chief Administrator Auqaf Lahore. Later, petitioner resiled from his resignation and submitted that he was coerced to submit his resignation. Initially, the petitioner approached for the relief, to Federal Services Tribunal. His appeal was either dismissed or withdrawn on 6-5-1979. He also applied to Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'A', Lahore for relief, but was unsuccessful. He, then invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, in Writ Petition No,2402/S of 1979. It was dimissed in limine on 6-5-1979, by a learned Single Judge of this Court by observing that his remedy lay in other forum. After the dismissal of the writ petition in the High Court, petitioner filed a civil suit on the subject in a Civil Court at Lahore. The Chief Administrator Auqaf, who was the sole defendant in the suit, contested it on merits. On 28-4-1982, the trial Court dismissed the suit instituted by the petitioner. He preferred an appeal. It was heard by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who maintained the findings of the trial Court recorded on material issues and dismissed the appeal with costs on 22-9-1982.
2. Incidentally, learned counsel for the petitioner was the learned Judge who had dealt with the appeal of the petitioner and given opinion on merits of his case. It was found that tender of resignation was voluntary. Presumably, the judgment given in appeal was not further assailed and consequently, it attained finality under the law. Approximately, four years later, the petitioner agitated the same issue in the Civil Court and instituted a fresh suit for it on 7-7-1986. The defendant, now respondent in this Court, contested the suit. During the course of the trial, the defendant submitted an application for summary rejection of the plaint, under Order VII, rule 11 of the Civil P.C. It was fixed on 7-5-1987, for hearing of arguments. Earlier to it, the trial Court had settled appropriate issues for taking evidence of the parties on them. Since on the adjourned date, plaintiff was absent, whereas the defendant was represented by his counsel, trial Court dismissed the suit for default in appearance. On 14-11-1987, an application for restoration of the dismissed suit was filed by the petitioner. Defendant resisted the restoration. The matter was put in issues and fixed for, taking of evidence. Petitioner gave no evidence and also defaulted in appearance. In this state of record, the trial Court dismissed the restoration petition on 14-4-1990. Petitioner preferred an appeal from the decision of the trial Court. Appeal was allowed on 18-12-1990, wherein impugned order was set aside and the trial Court was called upon to redecide the matter after affording an opportunity of reasonable defence to the parties. On 14-5-1991, the trial Court dismissed the revival application and appeal preferred from the decision failed on 21-1-1992, in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Lahore. Thereupon, a civil revision was filed in this Court.
3. It was admitted to hearing on 17-5-1992, and has come up for hearing today, in presence of the learned counsel for parties.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, Mehr Muhammad Nawaz Khan, Advocate relied upon cases reported in PLD 1954 Lahore 575, PLD 1970 Lahore 412, 1971 Lahore 746, 1986 CLC 1320 to contend that since a miscellaneous matter pertaining to rejection of the plaint under Order VII, rule 11 of Civil P.C. Was posted for hearing before the trial Court on 7-5-1987, it could not have dismissed the main suit for default in appearance. Only the matter listed before it could have been dealt with and not the matter not fixed for hearing on that day. Learned counsel was correct in his submission and the order sheet maintained by the trial Court supported him in this behalf. Had this been the only matter, the civil revision must have been allowed for trial of the suit on merits. But unfortunately, there was no merit in the suit. The subject-matter was already decided long long ago. Learned counsel for the respondent gave me the copies of judgments given in the earlier round of litigation between the parties. Not only the parties were the same, but the subject-matter of the suit was also common. Even a cursory glance at the copies of the judgments would convince that the findings in the earlier suit recorded by the trial Court and maintained in appeal precluded their re- agitation in a subsequent round of litigation. Present suit was a clear instance to violate the rule of finality of decision enacted in section 11 of Civil P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner was pointedly put the question as to how in presence of the earlier decision on the suit instituted by the petitioner, a second suit on the same subject-matter could be competently filed and tried on merits. With respect to him, he had no plausible answer. In fact, he could not have any acceptable answer. In the above scenario, restoration of the suit for its retrial must be an exercise in total futility without any change of result. It shall altogether be a purposeless litigation. Therefore, exercise of discretionary jurisdiction, which the revisional jurisdiction necessarily is, shall be of no purpose and benefit. In the above context, civil revision is dismissed with no order as to its costs in this Court.