' This single judgment snail decide the present revision petition (C.R. No,256 of 1992) and the four other connected revision petitions (C.R. Nos.257 to 260 of 1992) as common questions of facts and law are involved in all these petitions and they have arisen out of a consolidated judgment.
2. The petitioners/defendants, through the filing of the present revision petitions, have caned in question judgment, dated 30-11-1991, whereby the learned District Judge remanded the cases to the learned trial Court, while setting aside the judgment and decree, dated 7-5-1991, passed by the learned Civil Judge, whereby he rejected the plaints of the suits, filed by the respondents, for specific performance of agreement of sale.
3. Facts relevant for the decision of these revision petitions are that Mst. Elahi Khanum, deceased, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.1 to 15, entered into agreement to sell with some of the respondents in, respect of the disputed land and also delivered possession. Subsequently, she sold the same land to the petitioners, thus, various suits for specific performance were filed by different persons, which were contested by the defendants through the filing of the written statements. In some of the cases the learned trial Court framed issues. Later on, the learned trial Court after finding that the suits are hit by the provisions of section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 proceeded to reject the plaints vide consolidated judgment and decree, dated 7-5-1991.
The plaintiffs filed different appeals, which were allowed by the learned District Judge vide consolidated judgment, dated 30-11,-1991, whereby the cases were remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction to dispose of the suits after allowing reasonable opportunities to the parties for production of evidence, hence, the present revision petitions.
4. This Court, after finding that Mehr Ghulam Rasool, Advocate, counsel of the petitioners, has expired, directed the office, vide order dated 17-2-2003, to issue notices to the revision petitioners.
According to the office reports, pursuant to the said order, notices were issued to the petitioners for 11-3-2003, 25-4-2003 and 14-7-2003 and for today. Despite notices, as noted above, none has entered appearance to represent the revision petitioners. Even the petitioners were absent on 30- 7-2003, on which date the case was ordered to be relisted.
5. Despite various calls made, none has entered appearance even at the fag end of the Court's working hours. It appears from the record that the revision petitioners are not interested in pursuing the causes.
The revision petitions were admitted for regular hearing, on 29-2-1992. Although none entered appearance to represent the petitioners, yet in view of the principle laid down in a judgment reported as Muhammad Sadiq v. Mst. Bashiran and 9 others PLD 2000 SC 820, vis. "dismissal of a civil revision after its admission by the Court seized with it for non-prosecution is not legally well- recognized", I have refrained from dismissing the revision petitions for non-prosecution and proceed to decide the same on merits.
6. Upon the examination of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned District Judge after taking into consideration every aspect of the case and the judgment reported as Alam Khan v.
Ahla and 6 others 1989 MLD 3659, relied upon by the defendants, reached to the proper conclusions. It is discernible from the available record that the plaints could not have been rejected under the purported exercise of powers under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. I am of the view that the petitioners were not able to make out a case for the rejection of the plaints and the learned trial Court proceeded under erroneous assumptions regarding the relevant law. Upon the perusal of the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, I feel that it, while rejecting the plaints, committed legal errors, which have, in fact, been rectified by the learned District Judge. The reasonings and findings rendered by the learned District Judge are in consonance with the record of the cases and the law on the subject. The cases do not fall within the purview and scope of any of the categories mentioned in Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
7. From the perusal of the impugned, judgment I find that the learned District Judge did not commit any illegality or material irregularity in rendering the impugned judgment, thus, I am not inclined to exercise the revisional jurisdiction in the matter. In view whereof, the impugned judgment is hereby maintained.
8. Upon the comparison of both the judgments, I find that the impugned judgment is neither contrary to the record nor in violation of the principle of administration of justice, rather the said judgment has rectified the legal errors committed 'by the learned trial Court. In view whereof the judgment of the learned Appellate Court should ordinarily be preferred. If any case is needed, judgments reported as Mir Muhammad alias Miral v. Ghulam Muhammad PLD 1996 'Kar. 202, Ilamuddin through legal heirs v. Syed Sarfraz Hussain through legal heirs and 5 others 1999 CLC 312 and Aasa v. Ibrahim 2000 CLC 500 can be referred.
9. I have noticed from the order, dated 24-2-1992, passed by this Court in all the revision petitions that those were admitted to regular hearing on the strength of another revision petition (C.R. No,33 of 1992). I have called for the record of the said revision petition and find that the same was dismissed by this Court, on 6-11-1998. In addition to the findings rendered herein before, the reasons given for the dismissal of Civil Revision No,33 of 1992, which shall be read as part of this judgment, also justify the dismissal of the present revision petitions.
Upshot of the above discussion is that the revision petitions are devoid of merits, thus, all are dismissed with no orders as to costs.