' A declaratory suit with consequential relief instituted by the petitioners/plaintiffs that they were owners of the suit-land and entries in the Revenue Record/mutations were illegal, inoperative and ineffective qua their rights was contested by the defendants/respondents, which after due trial was dismissed on 23-1-1994 by the learned trial Court being barred by limitation and that the petitioners/plaintiffs were not entitled to the declaration sought for. Appeal preferred there against by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad on 26-1-2000 where against this revision petition has been filed.
2. Assailing the concurrent judgments of the Courts below it is contended by the learned counsel that the view taken by the Courts is illegal and erroneous inasmuch as that neither the suit was time-barred nor the petitioners could be non-suited on the basis of dismissal of Writ Petition No.1485-R of 1977 on 18-1-1986, which judgment dated 18-1-1986 was not on merits and was rather based on technicalities. Number of rulings have been cited by him including Ch. Sir Muhammad Zafrullah Khan v. The Custodian of Evacuee Property, West Pakistan and Karachi PLD 1964 SC 865; Haji Ashfaq Ahmad Khan and others v. Custodian of Evacuee Property, Pakistan and others PLD 1966 (W.P.) Karachi 597; Mst. Kaniz Fatima and 3 others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 5 others PLD 1973 Lahore 495; Hidayat Ullah v. Deputy Commissioner/ Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) and 2 others 1976 SCM R 243; Mst. Sikandar Jan and 13 others v.
Abdul Ghani and 11 others 1985 CLC 2582; Abdul Ghafoor v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and another 1985 SCM R 464 and Muhammad Siddique and others v. District Magistrate, Tharparkar and others 1985 CLC 2885.The learned counsel for the contesting respondent (Respondent No.2) has on the other hand contended that the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.1485-R of 1977 was not merely for technical reasons and that since the judgment was not agitated any further that was binding and s fresh litigation could not be launched by filing a civil suit on the same subject-matter, cause of action and the parties. Relies upon Ardeshir Cowasjee and others v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others PLD 2004 SC 70 and Mukhtar Ali Khan and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works Islamabad and 2 others 1993 CLC 1239 that the suit was barred on the principle of res judicata.
3. The respect contentions of the learned counsel have been considered. The undisputed aspect of the matter is that the petitioners who are successors of one Nathu had filed Writ Petition No.1485-R of 1977 alongwith Sultan Ahmed and Muhammad Aslam in which Mst. Barkat Bibi, the predecessor in interest of Mst. Sardaran Bibi respondent/defendant No.2 was party. That writ petition concerned with the same land and aimed at to assail the same proceedings of Settlement Authorities/Revenue Authorities. That petition was dismissed on 18-1-1986 observing:-- "3. Not only that the writ petition itself is insufficiently documented insofar as neither a copy of the R.L.II Khata No.301 has been placed on this record nor even that of the order dated 11-11-1969 passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner (L) Sargodha. As such, it is not possible on this record to locate the land in dispute for purpose of determining the respective claims of the parties. The last order dated 9-3-1976 being the one for mere implementation of the orders passed earlier by the Officers higher up in the hierarchy of the department, cannot be regarded 'the order impugned' in this writ petition which, if at all, treated to be relatable to the basic orders passed in the year 1968-69, having been filed after elapse of about 9 years of their passing, cannot justify interference in those orders after such an inordinate delay which has not been explained in any manner. Hence, writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
' Instead of agitating the matter in review or before the higher forum that judgment was allowed to attain finality. Any civil suit filed thereafter in the civil Court would undoubtedly have the ramifications of assailing the judgment dated 18-1-1986. There is no Cayil that proceedings in writ jurisdiction are regulated and governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure as was laid down in Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1970 SC 1 and Ardeshir Cowasjee and ' others v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others PLD 2004 SC 70. In Mukhtar Ali Khan and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works Islamabad and 2 others 1993 CLC 1239 it was observed that:-- "4. So far as the first contention of the learned counsel is concerned, it may be pointed out that admittedly the entire matter in controversy between the parties was brought before this Court in the said Constitutional petition. The first contention raised therein on behalf of the applicant's predecessors that the order passed by the Settlement Authorities dated that 18th April, 1966 had been passed without notice to the heirs of Mst. Aisha Khatoon was replied by this Court on merits.
No doubt, as pointed out earlier, in respect of the second contention it was observed that the question required an enquiry into the facts, nevertheless when the applicant's predecessors had made their choice of filing a Constitutional petition before this Court, the matter attained finality subject to any review or appeal which might have been filed against the said judgment."
' Such view of the Court had the backing of the 'judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Abdul Majid and others v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan and others PLD 1982 SC 146 and Asif Jah Siddiqui v. Government of Sindh and others PLD 1983 SC 46. There is thus, no doubt left that the principle of res judicata is applicable in such-like matters. It may be observed that judgment dated 18-1-1986 did not contain any direction/observation whatsoever leaving any scope for the petitioners/ plaintiffs to agitate the matter before the Civil Court. The judgment thus, was simply of dismissal of the writ petition, remedy whereagaisnt for the petitioners was in the form of review or before the higher forum. The matter having attained finality with the dismissal of the said petition the suit was barred. The precedents cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners proceed on their own peculiar facts and are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Thus, the view taken by the Courts concurrently was amply justified by the law. There is no justification for this Court to interfere with the same.
' As a result of the above the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.