' Muhammad Hanif predecessor-in-interest 'of petitioners Nos.1 to 7, petitioners Nos.8 to 13, the legal heirs of Ibrahim petitioners Nos:14-A to 14-C and petitioner No,15 filed a suit for declaration against the respondents assailing the validity of the will dated 11-12-1968 and agreement, dated 29-12-1968 executed by Mst. Shakoori in favour of Abdul Hameed respondent No,1. It was averred that the property in dispute, which is a house; was owned by Fateh Muhammad who died on 20-5-1966 and on his death his widow Mst. Shakoori came into possession of the said property. She also died on 1- 1-1969. The will and the agreement were attacked as fictitious, forged, fraudulent and collusive, that the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 and 3 were the legal heirs of the aforesaid deceased and entitled to inherit the property as against respondent No,1 who was the grandson of a sister of Mst.
Shakoori.
2. The suit was contested on a number of grounds. It was, inter alia, averred that the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed vide order, dated 30-7-1974, and therefore, the present suit was barred under Rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was asserted that the plaintiffs had no relation whatsoever with Fateh Muhammad or Mst. Shakoori and that Mst. Shakoori has become full owner of the property in the lifetime of her husband by virtue of gift of the property made in favour of Fateh Muhammad.
3. As many as 13 issues were framed. The parties led evidence in support of their respective pleas.
The learned trial Court found that on the same cause of action the plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit which was dismissed under Rule 8 of Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code and therefore, the present suit was barred under Rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure. In reaching this conclusion the judgment of this Court Abdul Haq v. Mst. Ghulam Fatima and 3 others PLD 1987 Lah.
574 was relied upon.
4. The petitioners took an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 6-3-1996.
The revision petition was filed on 25-9-1997 and is barred by time. An application for condonation of delay has also been moved.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial Court did not decide Issues Nos.2 to 12-C and dismissed the suit of the petitioners on the basis of his finding on Issue No,1 alone.
According to him, since the petitioners were the legal heirs of Fateh Muhammad, deceased, they could not have been non-suited on technical ground which amounted to defeating their rights guaranteed to them under the personal law.
6. As far as condonation of delay in filing his revision petition is concerned, it is contended by the learned counsel that Muhammad Hanif, one of the plaintiffs had died on 23-8-1994 and his son Sharafat Ali petitioner No,1 was abroad from 1990-95 who was unaware of the impugned judgments or even the pendency of the suit. It was further averred that in the month of August the petitioner came to learn about the impugned judgment.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 on the other hand, contends that there were 10 appellants before the learned First Appellate Court besides Muhammad Hanif father of petitioner No,1, and therefore, any one of them could obtain certified copies to challenge the impugned judgment .Of the learned First Appellate Court. He further contends that the suit was rightly dismissed as it was hit by the prdvisions of rule 9 of Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code.
8. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from the fact that the revision petition is barred by time, a perusal of the record appended to this revision petition shows that even the copy of the decree of the learned First Appellate Court has not been placed on the record. This-revision petition is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.
9. As far as prayer for condonation of delay is concerned a perusal of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act shows that the petitioner Sharafat Ali remained out of the country from 1990 to 1995. The copy of the impugned judgment was applied for on 21-8-1997, it was made available on the same date while the revision petition was filed on 25-9-1997. Including Muhammad Hanif, father of petitioner No,1, there were 11 appellants before the learned First Appellate Court. Merely because one of the petitioners was out of country or was not aware of the pending litigation, it could not be accepted as a sufficient cause to condone the delay. Further, the cony of the impugned judgment of the learned First Appellate Court was made available on 21-8-1997 while the revision petition was filed on 25-9-1997. There is not a word of explanation for the period from 21-8-1997 to 25-9-1997. No case is made out for condonation of delay.
10. As far as dismissal of the suit under Order IX, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. Is concerned, no exception can be taken to the findings of the learned two Courts. A perusal of the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court shows that the order dismissing the earlier suit was passed on 30-7-1974 (Exh.D.6) while the present suit was filed on 22-1-1984. It was not urged at the Bar that the present suit was based on a different cause of action. The emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioners has been that the issues touching the merits of the controversy should have been decided by the learned two Courts. This contention has no merits because in accordance with Rule 5 of Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, "the Court shall state its finding or decision with reasons, therefore, upon each separate issue unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit". After deciding Issue No,1, the learned trial Court clearly recorded .That in view of the finding on Issue. No,1 other issues were not required to be determined. This course was permissible and no exception can be taken thereto.
11. For what has been stated above I see no ground to interfere. This revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.