1. ' A declaratory suit with consequential relief instituted by the petitioner against Faisalabad Development Authority and Taj Din respondent No,4 was contested by them. The controversy spelt out of the pleadings of the parties gave rise to the issues which were framed by the trial Court.
2. Evidence was led by the parties. On conclusion of the trial, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment, dated 31-7-1997 whereagainst two separate appeals were preferred by the defendants which were accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 14-11- 2001. Through this revision petition, the same is sought to be assailed.
2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and material on the record has been considered.
3. The crucial issue that emerges is as to the entitlement of the petitioner/plaintiff to Plot No,544/A i.e. The suit property which was once allotted to him by the Faisalabad Development Authority.
3. Such allotment had been claimed by him in lieu of Survey No,75/15. The context in which the dispute arose and litigation commenced was that the petitioner/plaintiff had transferred his rights of Plot Survey No,75/15 to one Shamas Din who (Shamas Din) in lieu thereof obtained allotment of Quarter No,243/M, Allama Iqbal Colony, Faisalabad. Notwithstanding the transfer of Survey No,75/15, the petitioner obtained allotment of the suit property in lieu thereof. On the unearthing of the double allotment, secured against the same survey number, the allotment of the plot from the name of the petitioner/plaintiff was cancelled and criminal case (F.I.R. No,578/83 under section 420, P.P.C.) registered against him in which he was convicted by the Court which conviction was maintained by the Appellate Court. He filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief against the Faisalabad Development Authority and Shamas Din which after the trial was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 31-5-1989 recording a finding:-- ' "Many facts are admitted between the parties which are (i) the plaintiff was survey holder of 75/15,
(ii) the plaintiff has got allotment of Plot No,544/A in his favour and the defendant has allotment of Quarter No,243/M in his favour, (iii) both the plaintiff and defendant No,3 have deposited the price of their plot/quarter and sale agreements have already been issued in their favour, (iv) a case was registered under section 420, P.P.C. Against the plaintiff and he was convicted and sentenced to six months by Mr. Munir Ahmad Khan, Leghari, Magistrate and the appeal and revision against that order were dismissed, (v) the allotments were made against Survey No,75/15.
4. ' Appeal preferred there against by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 15-5-1991. Civil Revision No,938/D of 1991 was filed by him before this Court which was not pressed and was disposed of on 11-6-1991 in view of the concession of the learned counsel for the petitioner noted in the order that "he could not wriggle out of the judgments given in criminal jurisdiction against the petitioner holding him guilty of fraud and forgery". The present suit was instituted thereafter against the Faisalabad Development Authority and its officials and Taj Din respondent/ defendant. Suffice it to observe that insofar as the entitlement of the petitioner on the basis of Survey No,75/15 was concerned, the matter stood substantially concluded in the earlier round of litigation launched by the petitioner against the Faisalabad Development Authority and Shamas Din, besides the finding of guilt recorded against him in the criminal prosecution and his conviction. In the instant round of litigation, the learned trial Court, however, on an erroneous view of the matter adopted an illegal approach while recording his findings on Issue No,10 (res judicata).
5. He misconstrued the order passed by this Court on 11-6-1991 in Civil Revision No,938/D of 1991 which was indeed dismissal of the revision petition and affirmance of the judgments of the trial Court and of the First Appellate Court. Mere noting the desire of the petitioner to agitate his grievance with the Faisalabad Development Authority could not be taken as reversal of the findings and the judgments of the Courts below. The learned Additional District Judge, however, has while reversing the judgment of the trial Court proceeded on correct premises whose approach cannot be considered to be either illegal or that any material irregularity was committed by him. The conclusion drawn was that the "plaintiff/respondent Farzand Ali did sell his Survey Right No,75/15 to Shamas Din vide documents Exh.P.29, Exh.P.31 to Exh.P.33 and he admitted this sale while appearing before the relevant authority, the defendants/appellants Nos.1 to 3 but despite this sale he further got allotted another plot now in suit against the same sold survey number and since double allotment against one survey number could not be made, the appellants/defendants Nos.1 to 3 rightly cancelled the same vide, order, dated 19-6-1989 and the suit plot was later on rightly allotted to Taj Din defendant/appellant No,4 vide order, dated 21.-5-1991". Undisputedly the subject- matter of suit in the previous suit and in the present suit is the same i.e. No,544/A. Issue No,4 in that suit was "whether the plaintiff is owner with possession of Plot No,544/A in dispute and he did not proceed for double allotment? OPP" Issues Nos.2 and 5 in the present are" (2) Whether cancellation of the disputed Plot No,544/A from the plaintiff's name being illegal, based on fraud and contrary, to facts and without jurisdiction, inoperative and ineffective against plaintiff's rights? OPP (5)
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for confirmation of possession of disputed Plot No,544/A?
7. OPP". Cumulative effect of these issues is the same i.e. The right and title of the petitioner. As noted above, he had failed in the earlier suit and thus, could not re-agitate the same controversy over again in view of principle of res judicata.
8. ' The view thus, taken by the First Appellate Court is amply backed by the evidence on the record and the legal position obtaining in the matter. It does not warrant interference by this Court.
9. ' As a result of the above, the revision petition is without merit which is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.