' This revision petition impugns the judgment and decree dated 14-5-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore whereby he dismissed the appeal of the petitioners against the judgment and decree dated 16.11-1993 passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore by which he has dismissed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, Allah Ditta, was transferred a portion of ,the House No,23.SXX, 23-S21., Canal Park, Lahore. The second portion on the other side of the abovesaid house was transferred to Sardar Muhammad-defendant. This transfer was maintained by the Honourable Supreme Court. After the death of Allah Ditta it is alleged that the respondent behind the back of the petitioners fabricated an agreement of Association purported to have been executed on 3.12-1966 by the petitioners/ plaintiffs as well as Mst. Sardaran Bibi mother of the petitioner No,3 and Mat. Mukhtaran Bibi sister of petitioners Nos.1 and 2. It is alleged that the photocopy of the agreement of association was submitted beforr the Deputy Settlement Commissioner purported to show that the petitioners/ plaintiffs surrendered their rights 1/2 portion of the house transferred to Allah Ditta in his favour and thus deprived the petitioners from their lawful entitlements. It is alleged that the said document cannot be operated being forged, fabricated and fake.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondent-defendant. From- the divergent pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Whether the suit is barred by the principle of res judicata? OPD (1-A) Whether the Court has got no jurisdiction to proceed with the suit under section 25, Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiffs have any cause of action for this suit? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? OPP
(4) Whether the plaintiffs have got the locus standi for this suit? OPP
(5) Whether this suit is hit by Order 2, rule 2, C.P.C.? OPD
(6) Whether this suit is deficiently valued? OPD
(7) Whether this suit is had for non-joinder of parties? OPD
(8) Whether the suit is within time? OPD
(9) Whether the agreement in dispute dated 21-3-1966 is fabricated fake and of no legal effect as against the rights of the plaintiff, if so, its effect? OPP
(10) Relief.
4. After recording the evidence, the learned Civil Judge decided Issue No,1 against the petitioners- plaintiffs and held that the suit is barred by res judicata. Issues Nos.1-A, 2 and 4 were decided against the defendant. Issue No,5 was not pressed before the learned trial Court. Issue No,3 was decided against the petitioners. Issues Nos.7 and 8 were also decided against the petitioners- plaintiffs. Issue No,9 was decided against the petitioners. Consequently, the suit of the petitioner- plaintiff was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 16-11-1993. The appeal filed by the petitioners was also dismissed, on 14-5-1996 by the Learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, while maintaining the finding on all the issues.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the judgment reported as Mst. Amina Begum v. Additional Settlement' Commissioner and others 1981 SCM R 228, contends that under para. No,33 of Settlement Scheme No,1, recording of statement of the parties by Settlement Authority was condition precedent for acceptance of association. According to him since the statement of the parties were not recorded, therefore, no agreement of association is existed in the eyes of law. Further contends that the finding of the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Additional District Judge on Issue No,1 that the suit of the petitioners was barred by principle of res judicata is not sustainable.
6. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent contends that the question as to whether or not the petitioner executed the agreement of association surrendering their rights to the respondent came before the High Court in the Writ Petition No,221-R of 1983 which was dismissed, therefore, the question of genuineness of the aforesaid agreement of association cannot be re- agitated in the Civil Court and the suit of the petitioner was barred by principle of res judicata.
7. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record appended with this revision petition. There is no cavil with the proposition that recording of the statement of the parties by the Settlement Authority is a condition precedent for acceptance of the agreement of association and if the statements of parties are not recorded, no agreement of association is existed in the eyes of law as herd by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Mst.
Amina (supra) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the question as to whether or not the petitioners executed the agreement and surrendered their rights to the respondent is a question which has already been considered by the High Court in the Writ Petition No,221-R of 1983 and it was observed that:-- "The question as to whether or not the petitioners executed the agreement surrendering their rights to the respondent is a question of fact on which the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on appraisal of the evidence before him including the statements of the parties gave a verdict against the petitioners. There is no jurisdictional defect in his decision. The issue regarding the surrendering of rights came up before him for determination and it was his obligation to decide it one way or the other."
8. After the dismissal of the Writ Petition No,221-R of 1983, the petitioner has again re-agitated the matter of execution of the agreement of association and surrendered their rights to the respondent before the Civil Court. This question was directly and substantially was in issue in the Writ Petition No,221-R of 1983 decided on 21-6-1983. In this view of p the matter, the Civil Court was right in deciding the Issue No,1 against the petitioners by saying that the suit of the petitioners was hit by the principle of res judicata. The appeals of the petitioners have also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below of the competent jurisdiction, which needs no interference in exercise of revisional B jurisdiction of this Court as held in the case of Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCM R 1647.
' Resultantly, this revision petition fails and is dismissed with Costs.