CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioners filed suit for possession before the Civil Judge, Okara on 13.5.1989. The contents of the plaint reveals that the titled suit was filed against the respondents seeking possession of House No. B.1.5, S. 15 South measuring 4 marlas and 7-1/2 sarsahis. The contents of the plaint further reveals that full unit of the house in question situated in B-Block, Okara was allotted to the father of respondents Nos. T to 5 namely Ejaz as claimant on 11.12.1959. The measurement of the house in question was 9 marlas, 6 sarsahi. Abdul Wahid brother-in-law of said Ejaz Ahmad original allottee was his attorney who as attorney transferred half share of the house in question to his wife Flora Maryam and executed relinquishment deed dated 20.12.1963. The amount was paid through agreement. The remaining other half southern side of the house in question was got transferred vide registry bearing No. 310, dated 19.3.1968 in his on name by making misrepresentation of the father of respondents Nos. 1 to 5. The contents of the plaint further reveals that father of the respondents and Abdul. Wahid under Scheme No. 8 could not deposit the amount in the Government treasury. Resultantly the southern portion of the house reverted back to the auction pool. The father of the petitioners got the same' southern portion on 10.6.1986 in an open auction and after making payment secured the PTD fro Rehabilitation Department for the land measuring 4 marlas, 7-1/2 sarsahi. After the death of their father Khuda Bakhsh the petitioners/plaintiffs have stepped into his shoes and became owner of the property in question. The contents of the plaint further reveal that father of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 filed a suit before the Civil Court Okara on 31.1.1979 against Mst. Flora Maryam, etc. Seeking possession of half southern portion of the disputed house in which Flora Maryam and her son Irshad Ahmad heirs of deceased Abdul Wahid filed consenting written statement before the Civil Court, Okara. The learned Civil Judge decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.1979. Father of respondents Nos. 1 to 5 got possession of that southern side. The petitioners filed an application under Section 12(2), CPC against Flora Maryam, etc. Before the Civil Court, Okara with the prayer that the decree passed by Civil Court, Okara in favour of respondent No. 3 be set aside. Flora Maryam and Irshad Ahmad filed a written statement in the said application and finally compromise decree was- passed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 26.3.1985 after recording statement of the parties in presence of their counsel. The contents of The plaint further reveal that it was agreed between the parties that on the. Southern side a shop be given to the respondents by the petitioners and the parties with their joint expenditure make a partition wall and possession of the parties was admitted. The contents of the plaint further reveal that the aforesaid compromise was acted upon to the extent that wall was made in terms of the agreement dated 24.3.1985. The contents of the plaint further reveal that petitioners/plaintiffs claimed possession of the house in question on the basis of the aforesaid compromise decree dated 26.3.1985 but the respondents did not act in terms of the agreement arrived between the parties and refused to accept the claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs over the property question. The respondents filed separate written statements, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 1A to 5A
(2) Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct to file the present suit? OPD
(3) Whether the defendants are entitled to recover compensatory costs under Section 35A of CPC?
OPD 4A to 5A.
(4) Whether the suit has been incorrectly valued for the purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction?
OPD 1A to 5A
(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection of defendant No. 2? OPD- 2
(6) Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get the possession of the suit property as prayed for? OPP
(9) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover an amount of Rs.21,600/- from the defendants?
OPP
(10) Relief.
2. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 209.7.1994. The petitioners being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Okara who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree dated 20.2.1997. Hence the present revision petition.
3. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that judgments of -both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. The petitioners were non-suited by both the Courts below on the basis of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court dated 7.11.1990 (Exh. D/2) passed in Civil Appeal No. 125/80. He further submits that aforesaid judgment was passed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the settlement side. Therefore, both the Courts below were erred-in- law to rely upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court. He further submits that judgments passed by the Civil Court Exh. P/2 and Exh. P/3 in favour of the respondents and petitioners were not set aside by any Higher Court as the same were not challenged before any higher forum, therefore, those judgments attained finality. He further urges that both the Courts below did not consider the documentary evidence of the petitioners. Therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further urges that petitioners placed on record plethora of documents but both the Courts below were erred-in-law not to consider the documentary evidence of the petitioners. He further urges that petitioners were defrauded by the respondents. This aspect of the case was not considered by both the Courts below.
4. Learned Counsel of the respondents submits that the petitioners are auction purchasers and have no right whatsoever qua the property in question. The Honourable Supreme Court after considering all the facts and circumstances decided the case against the petitioners. He further urges that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen the matter which has already been finally decided by the Honourable Supreme Court. In support of his contention he relied upon Abdul Majid's case (1995 SCM R 429). He further urges that suit filed by the petitioners is not maintainable in the eyes of law. The petitioner has to file execution petition. Therefore, both the Courts below were justified to non-suit the petitioners. He summed-up his arguments that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself, It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court to resolve the controversy between the parties:- "In view of what has been stated above, we accept this appeal and hold the orders passed by the Settlement Department to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The appellant shall deposit the balance amount within two months failing which the authorities will proceed in accordance with law. The result would be that the cost of both the parties will be paid by the Settlement Department." The petitioners failed to bring on record any document to show that Mst.
Flora Maryam respondent No. 1 did not deposit the balance amount within the stipulated period as prescribed by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, In this view of the matter both the Courts below had rightly come to the conclusion that Mst. Flora Maryam had become the owner of the house in her possession, It is also admitted fact that aforesaid decree dated 26.3.1995 was secured by the petitioners during the pendency of the litigation either before the High Court or before the' Honourable Supreme Court, In this view of the matter both the Courts below have rightly given finding of fact against the petitioner that aforesaid decree was hit by the principle of Us pendens, It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners were parties in the proceedings in the earlier round of litigation which was finalized between the parties by the apex Court of the country in the aforesaid judgment. The petitioners did not point out the decree secured by them dated 26.7.1985 either before this Court or before the Honourable Supreme Court in the earlier round of litigation. Therefore, both the Courts below were justified to non-suit the petitioners, It is settled principle of law that once the matter has been concluded upto the apex Court then the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen the same on the well-known principle of res judicata, In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:-
(1) Asif Jan Siddiqul' v. Govt, of Sindh and others (PLD 1987 SC 46).
(2) Abdu! Majeed and others v. Abdu! Ghafoor Khan (PLD 1982 SC 146).
It is also admitted fact that both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners. It is settled principle of law that this Court has -very limited jurisdiction to interfere- in the finding of the Courts below while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC unless and until the same is result of misreading or non-reading of the record. Learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread by the Courts below or violated any principle laid down by the superior Courts therefore, revision petition has no merit as per principle laid down> by the Privy Council in N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar v. The Hindu Religious Endowment Board (PLD 1949 Privy Council 26).
In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.