' MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, J.---After having failed to achieve their aim before the hierarchy of revenue forums, the petitioners have invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for the redress of their grievances and for setting aside the impugned judgments and decree of the Revenue Courts which have been passed against them.
2. The facts in brief giving rise to this writ petition are that respondents 1 to 7 instituted a suit for recovery of produce in the tune of Rs,10,000 of the land fully detailed in the heading of the plaint, from `Kharif 1984 to `Rabi' 1987, for a period of three years. According to the respondents they are co-sharer to the extent of 1/3rd with the petitioners and which was in cultivative possession of the petitioners and the respondents were not being paid the produce in their share. The petitioners contested the suit and denied relationship of landlord and tenant. On conclusion of the suit, respondent No,8, Revenue EAC/Assistant Collector, Bannu, vide his order dated 17-11-1991, passed a decree in favour of the respondents to the extent of Rs,1,891.12 in all against the petitioners.
3. Feeling aggrieved from this order, the petitioners knocked at the door of respondent No,9, Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Bannu, who vide his order dated 17-2-1993, while agreeing with the order of the Assistant Collector, dismissed the appeal of the petitioners, where against revision petition was filed before the Additional Commissioner, D.I.. Khan Division, D.I. Khan, who vide his order dated 31-10-1993 dismissed the revision petition. Still not satisfied, the petitioners filed a further revision petition before , the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, Camp D.I. Khan, which also met the same fate. All these orders of the hierarchy of Revenue Courts were not to satisfaction of the petitioners, therefore, by filing the present writ petition they have come up to this Court for their redress.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended firstly, that the plaintiff-respondents are also in possession of some of the property fallen to the share of the defendants-petitioners and they are not paying any produce to the petitioners, so unless they have accounted for the same, they are not entitled to the decree of produce in respect of the property in question. Secondly, that it is a suit for rendition of accounts and unless a preliminary decree has been passed, no final decree can be passed in the suit, but none of their contentions are tenable as in the written statement no such plea with regard to the possession of the plaintiffs-respondents of some of the share in the property of the petitioners has been taken and if they are in possession of such a property belonging to the petitioners, then they can also bring such a suit for produce etc. With regard to his second objection, it is a simple suit for payment of produce and not in the strict sense a suit for rendition of accounts in which the passing of preliminary decree is necessary and even if it is taken as such as alleged by the counsel for the petitioners i,e, a suit for rendition of accounts, then the facts of the case are very simple as it is only with respect to the payment of share in the produce of the agricultural property and in which respect the evidence of the Patwari and that of the Qanungo who determined the share and also the estimate of the mesne profit, are sufficient and afford a ready decision and thus the taking of accounts will be unnecessarily lengthening the proceedings without any benefit to the parties and the decree passed is proper. Even otherwise this is a simple technical objection not raised before the lower forum/hierarchy, specially meant for the purpose and its taking for the first time in the writ jurisdiction and when this objection raised in the extraordinary Constitutional equitable discretionary jurisdiction of this Court is not for the advancement of the cause of justice but instead for creating a hindrance or an obstacle in the way of the petitioners in reaping of the crop of the litigation.
In the result this writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine.