Claiming to be legal heir alongwith Mst. Naziran widow of Veeru, whose inheritance is involved in this "lis", a declaratory suit with perpetual injunction as consequential relief was brought by Fazla, predecessor-in-interest of respondents. Inter alia, it was maintained, that decree, dated 26-11-1979 in favour of Fateh Muhammad, Hakim Din and Mst. Jannat Bibi and Mutation No.965 sanctioned on 29-8-1975 in this context were inoperative and ineffective qua his rights.
2. Claim, allegations and averments embodied in the plaint, were duly controverted, repudiated and traversed and suit was resisted on factual as well as legal plinth.
3.Divergent pleadings of the parties, entailed the formulation of follwing issues:-- (1)Whether the suit is within time? O.P.P.
(2)Whether the suit is barred by sections 42 and 56 of Specific Relief Act?
O. P. D.
(3)Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of section 12(2) of C.P.C.?
O. P. D.
(4)Whether the plaintiff has no cause of. Action and locus standi; to bring this suit? O.P.D.
(5)Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction; if so what is the correct valuation and its effect? O.P. Parties.
(6)Whether the plaintiff is the legal heir of Veeru, deceased and decree, dated 26-11-1979 is void, and ineffective on plaintiff's right? O.P.P.
(7)Relief.
4. After recording evidence, wished to be adduced by the parties and of course, providing due chance and opportunity of being heard to them, learned Civil Judge, then seized of the matter, adjudged Fazla to be collateral and legal heir of Veeru deceased and thus, entitled to inherit his estate to the exclusion of suitors, the distant kindreds. It was, however, found that the decree, dated 26-11-1979 had not been attacked properly by having recourse to section 12(2), C.P.C. As such suit was dismissed on this ground as well as point of limitation reduced into issue No. 1, which was answered in the negative.
5. Judgment and decree, so passed on 12-3-1987, were challenged in appeal, in which, it was held, that Fazla, having not been joined and arrayed as party to the suit culminated in the decree, dated 26-11-1979, same was not binding upon him and their successors-in-interest i.e. Present respondents. After setting aside impugned judgment and decree, dated 12-3-1987, learned Additional District Judge, also set aside the decree, dated 26-11-1979 passed in previous suit and remanded the case to learned Court with the direction of impleading respondents in aforesaid previous suit filed by Fateh Muhammad, Hakeem Din etc. Against Mst. Khudeja etc. And then decide said previous suit afresh after recording evidence.
6. Appeal against such order, dated 15-3-1988 was accepted by this Court on 22-6-1988 in F.A.O: No.71 of 1988 and the case was remanded to learned lower Appellate Court to record findings on merits of case of respondents as also their objection that the decree, dated 26-11-1979 passed in previous suit was not binding on them and could simply be ignored.
7. Appeal was allowed on 9-12-1990 by Ch. Muhammad Zafarullah, learned Additional District Judge, Chunian, by setting aside judgment and decree, dated 12-3-1987. Suit accordingly was decreed by observing that the decree was liable to be ignored as having been obtained in the back and absence of Fazla, who, was real person to inherit the property of Veeru deceased, and time would not run against a void order.
8.Instant -revision, has arisen in this background and chequered history of the case.
9.Record has been scanned in the light of arguments addressed by learned counsel for the parties.
10. There can be no cavil with the proposition that entitlement of the respondents to inherit estate of Veeru deceased to the exclusion of aforesaid suitors Fateh Muhammad, Hakeem Din and Mst.
Jannat Bibi and their successors-in-interest stands established to the hilt as having been consistently held and adjudicated so. In the absence of any commotion against such findings of even learned trial Court, same have attained finality and is a chapter past and closed. Instant petition is, accordingly, nothing but to add insult to injury and to flog dead horse. Conclusions of learned Additional District Judge find fortification from illuminating observations made in Ghulam Rasool and 2 others v. Member, Board of Revenue (Consolidation), Lahore and 2 others 1995 CLC 679, Mst. Marium and 5 others v. Haji Ali and 3 others PLD 1985 Kar. 705 and Riasat Ali and 4 others v. Muhammad Shafi 1984 CLC 2384. Same accordingly, are unassailable.
11. Be that as it may, section 115, Civil Procedure Code, applies to cases, involving illegal assumption, non-exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction. It cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or fact, which do not, in any way, affect the jurisdiction of the Court, no matter, however, erroneous, wrong or perverse, the decision might be either on a question of fact or law, unless the B decision involves a matter of jurisdiction. As erroneous conclusion of law or fact is liable to be corrected in appeal, but, revision will not be competent on such a ground, unless in arriving at such conclusion an error of law, has been committed.
12. Neither any such aspect has been put forth or highlighted nor is seemingly available so as to attract or entail provisions of section 115, C.P.C., which thus, can neither come into play nor pressed into service. Judgment and decree, sought to be impeached and set at naught, are accordingly G unexceptionable as the same neither appear to suffer from any infirmity nor perversity or arbitrariness. By no stretch of imagination, it can be taken to be fanciful.