1. ' This revision application is directed against judgment and decree, dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge in Civil Appeal No,12 of 2000 titled Mst. Rafiq Begum and others v. Muhammad Yousuf and others whereby the above appeal was allowed and the judgment and decree, dated 3-12-1999 passed in F.C. Suit No,46 of 1990 (Old No,80 of 1989) passed by learned trial Court was set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. ' The brief facts as narrated in the suit are that Muhammad Yousuf filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of the registered sale-deed and the injunction before the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur mentioning therein that he has been in possession of the property bearing City Survey No,B-2246/1 situated in Churki Ghitti Bagh-e-Hayat Ali Shah, Sukkur since 1950 and half of the ground floor was occupied by one Shafi Muhammad illegally, the above property was treated as evacuee property and then was transferred in favour of Sharafatullah predecessor-in-interest of respondent No,2 Syed Sabir Hussain and thereafter the respondents 2 to 7 in the year 1971 a contract of sale between Muhammad Yousuf and late Sharafatullah in respect of disputed property was made for consideration of Rs,20,000 and the entire sale consideration was paid by Muhammad Yousuf to late Sharafatullah and it way mutually agreed between the parties that after complying with the legal requirements the sale-deed shall be made issued to Muhammad Yousuf after obtaining the relevant documents. It was also mentioned in the suit that since the date of bargaining the plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises as owner and the property tax, electricity, water and Sui gas charges, were being paid by him. On 19-2-1989 one Amir Bux Mangi, Advocate issued notice to Muhammad Yousuf informing him that the disputed property has been purchased the non-evacuee property by L.Rs, of Sharafatullah through registered sale-deed.
3. According to Muhammad Yousuf he was sole and exclusive owner of the disputed property and he has received the possession of the property and the possession is peaceful and the sale consideration of the disputed property through an,agreement with late Sharafatullah and L.Rs, are under legal obligation to execute the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner and he had. Title and adverse possession and he be declared the owner of the property. It is further averted that subsequent sale-deed is illegal and filed the suit with the following prayers:-- "(i) That the plaintiff is the sole exclusive and absolute owner of the entire premises bearing City Survey No,B-2246/1, Choorki Ghitti, Bagh Ali Shah, Sukkur, on account of payment of entire consideration amount and also on account of adverse possession for over 12 years and his possession is not liable to be disturbed by the defendants, themselves through their servants, subordinates agents, in any manner whatsoever.
(ii) Without prejudice to the abovesaid prayer and as an alternative It is prayed that defendants Nos.1 to 7 or. Those of them liable to may be directed to execute and get registered the sale-deed in respect of the entire premises bearing. City Survey No,B-2246/1, Choorki Ghitti, Bagh-e-Hayat Ali Shah, Sukkur. And on their failure the same may be done by this Court, through the Nazir or some other person appointed by this Court for the same purpose.
(iii) That the sale-deed registered in favour of the defendant No,1 and executed on 25-1-1989 may be set aside and cancelled.
(iv) That by way of permanent or perpetual injunction; the defendants by themselves through their servants, subordinate, or any other agency may be restrained from interfering with peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the premises bearing City Survey No:B-2246/1, Choorki Ghitti Bagh- e-Hayat Ali Shah, Sukkur in any way whatsoever.
(v) Those costs of the suit, any other equitable relief may also be awarded to the plaintiff."
4. ' In response to notice Mst. Rafia Begum and other respondents filed written statement wherein she admitted that Yousuf was in occupation of suit-land as tenant and it was categorically denied that there was any agreement in respect of disputed premises between him and late Sharafatullah and also claimed to be a bona fide purchaser of the disputed property and suit was contested on several other pleas as stated in the written statement.
5. ' On the pleadings of the parties the learned 1st Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur initially framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of, the entire premises in suit bearing City Survey No,B-2246/1 situated in Bagh-e-Hayat Ali Shah, Sukkur?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract?
(3) Whether the defendant No,1 had purchased the disputed property from the L.Rs, of the defendants Nos.2 to 7?
(4) Whether the transaction of portion of disputed property ,in between the plaintiff and defendant No,1 is legal?
(5) What should the decree be?
6. ' The learned trial Court has also framed additional Issues Nos.6 and 7 during the pendency of the suit which are as follows:-- "6. Whether registered sale-deed, dated 25-1-1989 executed by defendants Nos.2 to 7 in favour of defendant No,1, is liable to be delivered up and cancelled?
7. What should the decree be?"
7. ' After recording the evidence of the parties the trial Court announced the judgment and decree on 3-12-1999, the same was challenged in Civil Appeal No,12 of 2000 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside and the case of the present petitioner Muhammad Yousuf was dismissed. Thereafter, the present revision petition has been filed before this Court.
8. ' On 26-4-2002 this matter was fixed for hearing of C.M.A. 83 of 2001 and by the consent of learned counsel for respective parties this civil revision was heard finally alongwith the above C.M.A.
9. ' Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik learned counsel for the respondents has filed on record a photostat copy of an order dated 30-8-2001 passed in C.F. No,328 of 1994 the subject-matter in this revision petition is similar as mentioned in the above Constitutional petition. It will be convenient to reproduce the order passed by D.B. Of this Court:-- "By this petition, the order dated 12-4-1994 passed by the Commissioner, Sukkur has been assailed on the 'ground that he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order as held by the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur in his order dated 19-7-1973 which was based upon section 2 of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 under which these notified persons are authorized to entertain only pending matters before the Settlement Authorities. Consequently, by order dated 19-7-1993, the Deputy Commissioner had refused to entertain the application filed by Muhammad Yousuf on the ground that the matter was under dispute in a civil suit which was pending as stated by the applicant in para. No,6 of his own application. However, it appears that the Commissioner without reading the provisions of the above law set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and gave his own finding by order dated 12-4-1994. The impugned order is patently against the provisions of above-referred Act and void ab initio. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the order of the Commissioner is set aside."
10. ' Mr. Malik has also raised the other preliminary objections in respect of maintainability of this revision petition as the petition filed by Mst. Rafia Begum has been allowed and by virtue of an order passed by this Court the petitioners Mst. Rafia Begum and others are the owners of the property and claim of the present petitioner Muhammad Yousuf cannot be presumed to be sole owner of case premises (City Survey No,2246/1) Choorki Ghitti Bagh-e-Hayat Ali Shah, Sukkur.
11. Learned counsel has also raised legal objection in view of order passed in Civil Revision No,D-328 of 1994 the doctrine of res judicata will come in the way of the present petitioner as justice requires that every cause should be over finally tried and public tranquillity decided once and litigation this cause should be concluded forever.
12. ' Mr. Abdul Fateh Malik learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following case- laws:--
(1) 1999 M LD 595; (2) 1999 M LD 824; (3) PLD 1979 SC 203; (4) PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 89 and (5) NLR 1979 Lah.
13. 614.
14. ' Mr. David Lawrence learned counsel for the petitioner has raised so many pleas on the merits of the case.
15. ' The view taken by the Division Bench in the said petition then merits of the case cannot be examined in this revision petition and the same has become infructuous.
16. In view of the decision made in C.P. No,D-328 of 1994 the section 11 of the C.P.C. Where there is a judgment inter parties it will prevent a fresh suit between them regarding the same matter. The A maintenance of public order the repose of society and the quiet of the families requires that what have been definitely determined by competent Authority shall be accepted as irrefrangible legal truth and it is an admitted position that rule of res judicata is applicable then, if it were not for the conclusive effect of all such determinations there will be no end of litigations and no security for any person, the rights of parties would be involved in endless confusion and great injustice often done under cover of, law.
17. ' The petitioner Muhammad Yousuf challenged the matter in Civil Court and thereafter applied the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur who declined to pass any order on the application moved by him and thereafter another application was moved before the Commissioner, Sukkur Division, Sukkur who passed an order dated 12-4-1994 who cancelled the entries in respect of evacuee property in dispute. The respondents have challenged the said order before this Court. The said order of the Commissioner, Sukkur Division, Sukkur was set aside and the petition was allowed.
18. The petitioner has claimed the property without any legal .Authority. The petitioner being the unauthorized occupant of the said property deprived the real owner to enjoy the benefit of their property for about 50 years therefore, Court is convinced that petitioner has no right of occupation over the said property the petitioner has delayed the smatter in the Courts and assumed various maneuverings which has resulted in delaying the dispensation of justice. In such circumstances I feel that it would be just and proper to saddle the petitioner with costs of Rs,20,000.
19. ' There is no illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the order of the Appellate Court and the safe is maintained and the present revision petition me its no consideration is dismissed with cost of Rs,20,000 alongwith the listed application.