1. ' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.---This appeal through leave of the Court has been preferred against the order, dated 21-9-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, in a review petition.
2. ' The respondents by instituting a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Charsadda against the appellants sought a declaration to the effect that they, as per record of right for the years 1963-64, were owners of the land measuring 1385 Kanals, 19 Marlas in Revenue Estate of village Bhlola, Tehsil Charsadda with the consequential relief that the decrees in favour of appellants relating to the suit property passed by the Revenue Court was not binding on them. The appellant without denying the ownership of the respondents contested the suit on the ground that the respondents being the legal heirs of Haji Muhammad Gul, were bound by the decree passed against them by the Revenue Court. The learned trial Judge, however, decreed the suit in favour of the respondents vide judgment, dated 22-7-1972 which was challenged by the appellants through an appeal before the District Courts and the Appellate Court while setting aside the decree remanded the case back to the trial Court for fresh decision. The suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment, dated 31-3-1983 and appeal preferred by the present appellants was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Peshawar, vide judgment, dated 12-2-1996. The appellant then filed a civil revision in the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 18-8-1993. The learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court while dismissing the revision petition observed that the decree for recovery of Rs,38,079.40 pending in execution before the Revenue Court would be executed against the property of Haji Muhammad Gul deceased, the judgment-debtor. The appellants sought review of the judgment, dated 18-8-1993 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of Peshawar High Court in civil revision on the ground that the decretal amount in all the four decrees passed by the Revenue Court would come to Rs,1,88,659.75 and, therefore, the judgment may be modified accordingly. The review petition was dismissed through the order made challenge before this Court.
3. Leave was granted in this appeal, vide order, dated 22-4-1996 to consider the question whether the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the matter pertaining to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of the decree of the Revenue Court.
4. ' Learned counsel for the appellants had contended (a) that the decrees passed by the Revenue Court were to be executed as such notwithstanding the change of ownership and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to disturb the decrees in question; (b) that the learned Judge in Chambers in the High Court without, properly attending the controversial issue observed that the decree of Revenue Court to the tune of Rs,38,079.40 would be executed whereas the total decretal amount was Rs,1,88,659.75 and thus it was a patent error on the record which needed correction by way of review of judgment.
5. ' The learned counsel representing the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that it was concurrently held by the three Courts that respondents were owners of the property and the decrees passed by the Revenue Courts in favour of appellants were not binding upon them. The learned counsel added that all questions of fact and law involved in the case, including the question relating to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court have already been settled which were not supposed to be reopened in the review petition and the same was rightly dismissed.
6. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, find that the review of the judgment of High Court was sought by the appellants only to the limited extent of correction in the decretal amount for the purpose of execution of decree and leave was granted to consider the question regarding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the matter relating to the execution, discharge and satisfaction of decrees of Revenue Courts. We having heard the learned counsel for the parties find that the question has no nexus with the ground on which review was sought. We, therefore while recalling the leave granting order, dismiss this appeal with no order as to costs.