1. ' This is a Civil Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. Directed against the order dated 2-10- 1991 passed in Civil Appeal No, 40 of 1989 Sikandar Ali and another v. Abdul Rahim and another whereby the appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed.
2. ' The brief facts of the case are that the applicants filed a suit for declaration that order dated 19-7- 1973 of transfer of Municipal Shop No,5/79 Pir Bukhari, Jacobabad passed by respondent No,2 was illegal, unlawful, ultra vires, mala fide, null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent No,1 from claiming the right of ownership over the said shop/hotel. The respondent No,1 filed written statement wherein he stated that the said shop initially stood in the name of Muhammad Arif predecessor-in-interest of the applicants who passed on the said shop on receipt of Pagri amount from him and since then he was paying rent to the municipality and was lessee of the said shop by virtue of the Order No,42 dated 19-7-1973 and was in continuous possession and has spent a sum of Rs,40,000 over the said shop. The applicants filed Appeal No,1 of 1975 against the order dated 19-7-1973 before the Deputy Commissioner and Controlling Authority, Jacobabad which was dismissed and respondent No,
1. Was directed, to pay a sum of Rs,4,000 to the applicant No,2 as financial help to her. It is also stated that previous Suit No,29 of 1985 filed by the applicants against respondent No,1 was dismissed on 18-11-1987, therefore, the subsequent Suit No,38 of 1988 was barred under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. The respondent No,1 filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. On 13-12-1988 which was heard and the said application was allowed and the plaint was rejected as per order dated 1-6-1989 against which Appeal No,40 of 1989 was preferred which was also dismissed as per order dated 2-10-1991 passed by District Judge, Jacobabad against which present Revision Application has been filed.
3. ' I have heard the applicant No,2 in person though initially she was represented by Mr. G.M.
4. Parayani, Advocate and then by Mr. Hatif Khudai, Advocate, and then by Mr. Sharif Khattak, Advocate, ultimately Miss Farida Motan, Advocate, who also withdrew her power as per her statement on record that applicant No,2 has lost her faith in her and accordingly as per order 5-3- 1996 passed by this Court applicant No,2 requested for time to engage a counsel which was granted and matter was fixed today for hearing.
5. ' I have heard the applicant No,2 in person and Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No,
1. None has appeared for respondent No . 2 .
6. ' Applicant has submitted that injustice has been done to her and the shop has been taken away from her which initially belonged to her husband. She stated that she had appealed against the order of respondent No,2 before the Deputy Commissioner and Controlling Authority but justice was not done by him and thereafter she filed a suit which was also dismissed, therefore, she filed second suit which was dismissed against which appeal was preferred but it was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, Jacobabad.
7. ' Mr. Ghulam Muhammad Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has argued that Suit No,29 of 1985 was dismissed for non-prosecution on 18-11-1987 and subsequent Suit No,38 of 1988 filed by applicants was barred by Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. As it was based on the same cause of action. He also argued that applicants have challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner and Controlling Authority, Jacobabad and the said order could be challenged within one year in view of Article 14 of Limitation Act but the suit has been filed much after the expiry of the stipulated period under Article 14 of Limitation Act.
8. ' Para. 13 of Suit No,29 of 1985 (Sikandar Ali and another v. Abdul Rahim and another) is in respect of cause of action which is in same words as in para.15 of subsequent Suit No,38 of 1988 wherein applicants have admitted the filing of earlier suit and its dismissal for non-prosecution. Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. Reads as follows:- "(1) Where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed under rule 8, the plaintiff shall be precluded from bringing a fresh suit in respect of the same cause of action. But he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non- appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit."
9. In view of the above provision, the proper remedy for the applicants was to make an application under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. To set the dismissal aside showing sufficient cause for their non- appearance on the date when the suit was called for, hearing. The applicants failed to resort to the said remedy but filed the fresh suit on the same cause of action which in terms of Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. Was barred as the same has been based on the same cause of action and between the same parties. It has not been shown that the impugned order was illegal or suffered from any irregularity amounting to illegality. I do not consider it necessary to touch the plea of applicability of Article 14 of Limitation Act as this revision is being dismissed on account of being barred under Order 9, Rule 9, C.P.C. The findings of the two Courts below on the said point is legal and proper and calls for no interference in this revision. In view of the aforesaid reasons and law, the revision application has no merits which is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.