1. ' This Revision is directed against the interlocutory order passed by the 1st Senior Civil Judge, Larkana on 20-2-1991 on the application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C.
2. And the order dated 31-8-1991 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Larkana dismissing the C.MA. No, 10 of 1991 filed against the order dated 2-2-1991 passed by 1st Senior Civil Judge, Larkana in F.C. Suit No, 118 of 1990.
3. ' Briefly stated the facts which lead to this Revision are that the petitioners filed F.C. Suit No,118 of 1990 for declaration and perpetual injunction praying therein as under:--
(i) to declare that the plaintiffs are owners of the suit land measuring 24-19 acres as shown in paras. Nos.1 to 3 of the plaint and the defendants have no title or interest therein and the mutation of Khata of the same in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and threatened action of the defendants in dispossessing the plaintiffs therefrom is illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority;
(ii) to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land themselves or through their agents and subordinates;
(iii) award costs.
(iv) any other relief.
4. ' The petitioners/plaintiffs named above also made an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. In the said suit, to which only defendant/respondent No,1 named above filed objections. The learned trial Court after hearing the Advocates for the plaintiffs and the defendant No,1 decided the said application vide order dated 2-2-1991 granting interim injunction to the plaintiff No,1 in respect of his land against the defendant No,1 only and rejecting the prayer of the injunction of the other plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed C.MA.
5. No,10 of 1991 which was heard and dismissed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Larkana vide order dated 31-8-1991. Thereafter the present Revision is filed by the petitioners. It is worth to note that the defendant No,1 did not prefer any appeal against the grant of injunction against him by the trial Court.
6. ' On 22-8-1995 before hearing the arguments on main Revision, the learned Advocate for petitioners filed a statement withdrawing the suit against Mst. Nawab Khatoon (defendant No,2) who is already dead, which was granted and the suit against her stands dismissed as withdrawn.
7. ' I have heard the learned Advocates for the petitioners and the respondent No,1, as the respondents Nos.3 to 5 were served but they chose to remain absent. As regards respondent No,2, the title of this Revision and the C.M.A. No,10 of 1991 show that she is dead and is sued through respondent No,l, but she is not served in this Court even through respondent No,1. The diary dated 15-2-1992 signed by Additional Registrar of this Court shows that since she has already expired, it was wrongly considered that it was no more necessary to serve her through her legal heirs or even through respondent No,1 and the matter was treated as ripe for hearing.
8. ' The perusal of record shows that the suit was filed against Nawab Nabi BIDE and 9 others, as per order dated 20-2-1991 passed by 1st. Senior Civil Judge, Larkana on application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. In which injunction was prayed against defendants Nos. 1, 5, 7 and 8. The petitioners while filing C.MA. No,10 of 1991 as well as this Revision Application showed only 5 (five) respondents. Since the true copy of the plaint filed with the Revision does not show the names of the defendants, as such it cannot be said as to who is left by the petitioners in appeal and the present Revision; but it is certain that all the parties who were defendants in the suit were not joined as respondents in the appeal as well as in this Revision, which ground alone is sufficient to dismiss the present Revision being not maintainable.
9. ' Apart from the above, the learned Advocate for the petitioners was not in a position to show any ground which may lead to set aside the concurrent findings of facts.
10. ' The petitioners have failed to point out any jurisdictional defect or irregularity in the order of the learned trial Court as well as the order of the learned Appellate Court to justify interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Provisions of section 115, C.P.C. *e discretionary and can only be invoked if the irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction has led to injustice or hardship. No irregularity or injustice is manifest on record to justify interference by this Court in the impugned orders.
11. ' For what has been discussed above, this Revision has no merit which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The matter is already delayed due to appeal and revision against the interlocutory order, I, therefore, direct the trial Court to give preference to this matter and decide the suit at his earliest convenience.