' The facts forming the backgrounds of this Revision are that applicant filed a Civil Suit No,2730/1980 in the Court of XVIth, Civil. Judge, Karachi against respondent No,1 for declaration and injunction praying that the applicant be declared owner of the property in suit and that the respondent had no right, title and/or to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property, and to restrain him by permanent injunction not to eject or dispossess the applicant from the suit premises.
2. Respondent No,2 also filed a Civil Suit No,4253/80 in the same Court against the applicant for declaration and cancellation of documents, declaring that he was the owner of the suit property.
Both the above suits were consolidated by the trial Court and they were disposed of by a common judgment. Both the suits were dismissed and in the result, applicant preferred an appeal being 274/1985 in the court of District Judge, Karachi South. Respondent also filed Civil Appeal No,264/1985 in the same Court. Both the appeals were transferred to the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, South Karachi and thereafter, to the Court of IVth Additional District Judge, South Karachi.
3. There were also rent proceedings pending between the parties in the Rent Case No,707/75 (New No,1075/1985) which were decided against the applicant and the appeal preferred by the applicant before this Court was also dismissed. However, the applicant before this Court was ejected from the premises. According to the application, for this reason respondent No,2 withdrew his Appeal No,264/1985 and only Appeal No,274/85 filed by applicant remained pending before the Court. In that appeal respondent filed an application under Section 11 read with section 151, C.P.C. And in the result IVth A.D.J., Karachi, South dismissed the appeal finding it to be infructuous under section 11 read with section 151, C.P.C. By his order dated 21-2-1991. Against this order applicant, preferred this Revision Application.
' I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. The main submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that an appeal had been filed before the Supreme Court and that although he had informed the appellate Court about the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, the appellate Court did not take notice of it.
6. A certified true copy of the judgment of the Supreme Court has been filed before this Court. The copy of this judgment was delivered on 20-4-1991, after about two months of the impugned order.
The copy of this judgment shows that appeal had been decided by the Supreme Court on 8-1-1991 but this fact had not been brought to the notice of the appellate Court till the appeal was disposed of as stated above.
7. Learned appellate Court has decided this matter rightly following the principles of law as laid down by the superior Courts. In a case reported as Siraj v. Lal Bux and 3 others (1989 CLC 736) it has been held:-- "It is therefore quite clear that whenever a final order has been passed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance all questions arising between the parties and relating to the execution, discharge of satisfaction of order shall be determined by the Rent Controller and not by a separate suit. It is further explained that in such execution proceedings no payment, compromise or agreement shall be valid unless such payment, compromise or agreement is made before or with the permission of the Authority passing the order. Hence it would appear that the present suit is barred under section 22 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 as well as on the general principles of res judicata.
' It was further held:-- "By now it is a settled law that where the proceedings under Rent Restriction Ordinance have been finally decided against a party up to the last stage, it is not open to him to reagitate the same by filing a civil suit or a writ petition. Such suit or writ petition is barred on the general principles of res judicata."
8. In deciding the above case reliance had been placed on the case of Salahuddin v. Zaheeruddin reported in PLD 1988 SC 221. The relevant portion is as under:-- "A matter involving even a dispute of title havin once obtained finality in the Rent Controller's forum including the hierarchy of appeals and thus the appellate and superior Courts) cannot be reagitated in a suit before a civil Court of general jurisdiction, inter alia, because of principles of general res judicate, the provisions contained in Section 12(2), C.P.C. Read with section 9, C.P.C., and, the provisions contained in Section 15(7) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 (as amended)."
9. In view of abovementioned facts and the law, I am of the opinion that the learned First Appellate Court has rightly decided this matter and it calls for no interference. I, therefore, dismiss the Revision Application with no order as to costs.