NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.- This order will dispose of Civil Petition No. 260-Q of 1997 and Civil Petition No. 261-Q of 1997 both filed by Muhammad Kazim and Handu. Respondents in these two petitions are also the same, namely, Province of Baluchistan and 5 private respondents. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioners.
2. Private respondents had tiled a suit before Qazi, Uthal, averring that their grand-father purchased a piece of land from the ruller of Lasbela in 1899 and possession of the same was also handed over to him and since then they have been in possession of the said land but, during settlement operations, the lands were entered in the name of the Government of Baluchistan. in the suit, prayers were made for corrections of the entries. The suit was decreed. Government of Baluchistan preferred an appeal before Majlis-e-Shoora, Khuzdar. During the pendency of the appeal, petitioners filed an application for impleading them as party but the application was dismissed. No appeal/reversion or other proceedings were taken by the petitioners tor challenging the said order dismissing their application for being joined as party. Later on the appeal tiled by the Government of Baluchistan was dismissed on 22-4-1992. Later the petitioners tiled an application under Section 12(2) on 19-6-1997 before Qazi, Lasbela at Uthal, challenging the decree dated 21-9- 1992 on the ground that it had been obtained by the respondents on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation. The application was contested by the private respondents; issues were framed and the trial Court directed the parties to adduce evidence. After hearing the parties the trial Court dismissed the application by order dated 21-1-1995. Being aggrieved, petitioners filed an appeal before the Majlis-e-Shoora, Khuzdar, which was dismissed on 23-9- 1996. In the circumstances, petitioners approached the High Court through separate revision petitions which have been dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 15-10-1997 of the High Court for the following reasons:-- "I have considered the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case minutely. It may be noted that against the judgment, dated 21-9-1991, passed by the learned Qazi Lasbela at Uthal and appeal was preferred by Government of Baluchistan. During pendency of the appeal petitioners preferred an application for impleading them as party. The same was rejected by the learned Majlis-e-Shoora, Khuzdar. Petitioner did not challenge that order before any forum. Thereafter, an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., was filed. Re-joinder to the same wad tiled. Issues were framed and the parties were directed to adduce evidence as it has been mentioned hereinabove. The petitioners produced three witnesses in support of their claim.
Learned trial Court after properly assessing the same dismissed the application. The appeal so preferred by the petitioners before learned Majlis-e- Shoora, Khuzdar, was also dismissed. I have gone through both the judgments but I do not see any irregularity, illegality, misreading or non- reading of evidence which could render the judgments impugned to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Furthermore, judgment passed by learned Qazi, Uthal on 21-9-1991 and appellate judgment passed by learned Majlis-e-Shoora, Khuzdar, on 28-4- 1992 attained finality. Above all, there are concurrent findings of facts arrived at by two Courts below which even otherwise cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. In this view I am fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1997 SCMR page 1139.
Relevant observation therefrom reads as under:- Before considering the contention of the parties on merits we would like to mention here that the scope of interference with concurrent findings of fact by. The High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, C.P.C., is very limited. The High Court while examining the legality of the judgment and decree in exercise of its power under Section 115, C.P.C., cannot upset finding of fact, however, erroneous it may be on reappraisal of evidence and taking a different view of the evidence. Such findings of facts can only be interfered with by the Courts below have either misread the evidence on record or while assessing or evaluating the evidence having omitted from consideration some important piece of evidence which has directed bearing on the issues involved in the case.
For the foregoing reasons I am of the opinion that the judgments impugned are well-reasoned.
Both the Courts below have dealt with the matter in accordance with law and delivered judgments after elaborately discussing the evidence brought on record and attending each and every aspect of the case. As such, petitions have no force which are accordingly dismissed."
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that no case is made out for interference. It may be observed that even otherwise the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C., filed by the petitioners before the trial Court was not competent.
The first legal obstacle in the way of the petitioners was that, according to themselves, they came to know about the litigation pending between the Government of Baluchistan and respondents when the appeal was being heard and they filed the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C., for being joined as a party but the said application was dismissed. It is unfortunate that neither the said application nor the affidavit in support of such application has been filed but learned counsel could not deny that in such application all grounds must have been taken by the petitioners which were taken in their application under Section 12(2), C.P.C, which was filed later on. It is, however, admitted that the order of the Majlis-e-Shoora (copy not filed) declining to implead petitioners as parties to the appeal was not challenged by the petitioners. Such order was a final order insofar as the petitioners were concerned. They were entitled to file an appeal/revision or other proceedings for challenging the said order so that if they had made out a case they would have been joined as a party to the proceeding then pending before the Majlis-e-Shoora. By not challenging such ing their application under Order 1, Rule 10, C.P.C., petitioners were estopped later to file an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C.
In any case they could have filed appeal/revision against the judgment of the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal of Government of Baluchistan even though they were not parties to the suit and appeal. See H.M. Saya v. Waztr Ali Indus. (PLD 1969 SC 65).
4. As a result we find no merit in these petitions which are dismissed and leave is refused.