' Fateh Khan son of Gul Sanam and the legal representatives of his deceased-brother, namely, Gul Hasan, residents of Wanda Kalan, caste Jat, Dakhli Dalu Khel, Lakki Marwat, have preferred the present revision petition against Mosam Khan and four others, contesting respondents, together with proforma respondents Nos.6 to 26 herein, for setting aside the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Additional Civil Judge Lakki dated 12-5-1991, and Additional District Judge Lakki, dated 9-4-1995, vide which their suit and appeal were dismissed respectively.
2. Facts of the case briefly are that Fateh Khan and L.Rs of the deceased plaintiffs (hereinafter petitioners), brought a suit against Mosam Khan and 4 others (hereinafter respondents) Who are said to be the defendants of Shah Beharam and 21 others mentioned in heading of the plaint for a declaration .To the effect that the petitioners and proforma respondents were owners in possession of the suit land which was redeemed and that mutations Nos.21280 and 22639 dated 21-9-1986, alongwith orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner dated 19-7-1984 and 19-1-1986 in favour of the contesting respondents Nos.1 to 5, were illegal, void and against their rights.
3. Besides, the order of this Court in R.S.A.No,269 of 1967 dated 11-10-1976, which created a clerical error, namely, {{URDU TEXT}} " and was, therefore, wrongly interpreted as a "Pen mistake"? In alternative, in the aforesaid plaint, relief was also claimed for a decree of redemption of suit land on payment of Rs,200 in their favour and the proforma respondents against the contesting respondents 1 to 5.
4. In the plaint, it is alleged that the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting respondents 1 to 5, namely, Shah Behram, had requested the Collector Lakki to redeem the entire suit property in his favour and in favour of the other proforma respondents, vide his application dated 15-10-1963 (Exh.P.W.2/5) which was accordingly. Done on payment of the mortgage charge vide order of the Collector dated 17-9-1964 in file No,84 and thereafter, they obtained possession of the redeemed land.
5. It is important to mention here that after redemption of the suit land, one Abdulllah Jan filed Suit No,24/1 of 1965 against Shah Behram aforesaid and others in the Civil Court in respect of the suit land claiming ownership over the entire suit property by way of prescription. The learned Senior Civil Judge Bannu vide his order dated 7-5-1966 decreed the suit declaring Abdullah Jan as owner of the suit property to the extent of 8/25th share, while the remaining land was declared to be the property of Government of Pakistan as it was said to be evacuee, therefore, the revenue order dated 17-9-1964 was declared void. In appeal, the District Judge Derajat vide his order dated 7-5- 1967 upheld the aforesaid decision and dismissed the same. Aggrieved therefrom, Shah Behram preferred R.S.A. No,269 of 1967 before this Court and vide order dated 11-10-1976, a learned Single Judge of this Court upheld the finding of the Court below to the extent of 8/25th share in favour of Abdullah Jan, while through a modification, 12/25th share out of the suit property was given to Shah Behram appellant therein.
6. The Revenue Authorities giving effect to the aforesaid orders of this Court entered mutation No,21280 and attested the same in favour of Shah Behram and others including the petitioners herein and respondents 1 to 5 of the present suit. Since this situation did not suit Shah Behram, therefore, he filed an appeal (Exh.P.W.2/1) against the aforesaid mutation before the Collector who vide his order dated 19-7-1984 accepted the same and directed the Revenue Officer to comply with the decision of the High Court dated 11-10-1976 by giving 12/25th share to Shah Behram and 8/25th share to Abdullah Jan to the ouster of the present petitioners and respondents No,1 to 5 of the plaint. Fateh Khan etc again went on appeal to the Additional Commissioner D.I. Khan who also maintained the findings of the Collector vide Exh. P. W . 2/2 dated 19-1-1986.
7. Reverting back to the present proceedings, the learned Additional Civil Judge Lakki vide his judgment dated 12-5-1991, which is the subject-matter of the present petition, held suit of the petitioners hit by the principle of res judicata and also that the petitioners had no cause of action basing his decision on the verdict of this Court dated 11-10-1976.
8. On appeal, the learned District Judge Bannu also dismissed the claim of the petitioners vide his order dated 9-4-1995 by holding that the judgment of the trial Court did not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity. As a nutshell of the abovementioned detailed facts, the crux of the matter is that the petitioners and contesting respondents Nos.1 to 5 of the suit have been deprived of 5/6th share out of the suit property, which had been redeemed by Shah Behram who is said to be their co-sharer.
9. Claim of the petitioners is that the order dated 11-10-1976 of this Court had been misinterpreted and that the Revenue Authorities have exclusively entitled Shah Behram to 12/25th shares, which in fact was also the due share of all the legal heirs of Zarif Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of both the contesting parties, who in fact had mortagaged the suit property on 28-8-1884 vide mutation No,796. The record reflects that Shah Behram had throughout litigated in connection with the redemption of the suit property involving the present petitioners and respondents 1 to 5 of the plaint as necessary parties before the Revenue Authorites/Collector as is evident from Ex.P.W.2/5.
10. Since both the lower forums below have given a decision against the petitioners determining the matter as a past and closed transaction having been finally decided by this Court, therefore, to my mind, the instant suit of the .Petitioners was not proper in its form and could not be maintained, as it seems to be misconceived. In fact, the proper remedy available to the petitioners was to have moved the Supreme Court in special leave to appeal against the order of this Court or to have resorted to the provisions of section 152, C.P.C., which they had failed to avail. Provisions of section 152, C.P.C. Are, however, reproduced as under:--- ' "Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or errors arising therein from any accidential slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties."
11. Having considered the valuable arguments advanced at the bar and the materials available on record, I feel that the impugned orders of the two Courts below have no legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, I am constrained to dismiss this revision petition which is hereby ordered with no order as to costs.