' The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration qua the land in question against the Province of Punjab and others for the grant of proprietary rights of the land in question before the Civil Judge 1st Class, Faisalabad. The respondents filed written statement controverting the allegations levelled in the plaint. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 28-2-1995. The respondents-Province of Punjab being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 16-5-1995. The Province of Punjab filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the learned trial Court, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 18-9-1997, thereafter the Provincial Government filed another application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. Before the learned First Appellate Court, Faisalabad on 28-9-1997, which was also dismissed vide order dated 24-6-1998 for non-prosecution. The respondents filed an application for restoration of the same before the First Appellate Court which was dismissed vide order, dated 4-4-2002. The respondents did not challenge the same before any higher authorities. The petitioner submitted an application before the Revenue Officer for sanction of mutation in his favour on the basis of judgment passed by the Civil Court, but the respondents failed to sanction the mutation in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved filed Constitutional Petition No.8596 of 2001, which was disposed of vide judgment, dated 8-10-2002 in the following terms:-- "The Revenue Officer is directed to entertain the mutation on the basis of judgment and decree of the Civil Court which is final between the parties as the respondents failed to get the same reversed till date and sanction the mutation in accordance with law within reasonable time after providing proper hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner and any other person, who would be aggrieved by his order.
' The petitioner submitted an application before the Revenue Officer, who sanctioned the mutation in favour of petitioner vide order, dated 7-4-2003. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 filed Constitutional Petition No.4293 of 2003, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 9-4-2003.
Respondents Nos.4 and 5 filed an application before the District Revenue Officer, Faisalabad, who dismissed the same vide order dated ' 28-1-2004. Subsequently, respondents Nos.4 and 5 submitted another application before the Revenue Officer, who submitted his report, dated 7-4- 2003 to the District Officer Revenue, who accepted the application of review on the same day, thereafter the final order was passed by the District Officer Revenue, Faisalabad on the application of respondents Nos.4 and 5 on 29-4-2003. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Article 201 of the Constitution. He further submits that the application of the respondents No.4 and 5 was dismissed by the District Officer Revenue vide order, dated 28-1-2004. Thereafter, second application filed by the respondents before the District Officer Revenue on the same subject-matter and relief, was not maintainable. He further submits that the Revenue Officer under the direction of the District Officer Revenue, submitted his report on 7-4- 2003 and allowed the review application on the same day and thereafter formal order was also passed on 29-4-2003 without issuance of any notice to the petitioner qua setting aside of mutation, which has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the Revenue Officer on 17-2- 2003, therefore, the petitioner has accrued vested right, hence the respondents have no lawful authority to review the same without issuance of notice to the petitioner. The impugned order itself reveals that the same was passed without hearing to the petitioner.
3. The learned Law Officer submits that the petitioner approached the Civil Court and secured the restraining order as is evident from the contents of para.9 of the writ petition; therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable.
4. The learned counsel of private respondents submits that the Constitutional petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner has filed civil suit qua the same subject-matter and relief, which is pending adjudication before the competent Court. The photo copies of civil suit and other documents are placed on record by the counsel of the respondents.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that in spite of pendency of civil suit, in case, the impugned order is patently illegal, then this Court has ample jurisdiction to set aside the same while exercising powers under Article 199 of the Constitution. He further submits that suit filed by the petitioner is not qua the prayer in the present writ petition. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:-- ' Mst. Sattan and others v. Group Captan Mansoor Hussain PLD 1962 (W.P.) Lah. 151; Tanvir Rasool Roller Flour Mills v. MAPCO and another 2002 CLD 157; Shipyard K. Damen International v. Kar.
Shipyard Works Ltd. 2003 CLD 1.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
7. In case, the prayer clause of the writ petition and the civil suit be put in juxta-position, then it is crystal clear that the petitioner has challenged the report of Revenue Officer dated 7-4-2003 in the civil suit, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the prayer clause of civil suit and writ petition to resolve the controversy between the parties:-- Prayer of civil suit It is respectfully prayed that .... Order dated 7-4-2003 passed by the defendants whereby he has allowed the review of Mutation No.19901 dated 17-2-2003 of Chak No.213/R.B. Is illegal, without jurisdiction, mala fide, a result of non-appreciation of facts and law and is also against the decision dated 8-10-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court."
Prayer of writ petition ' In view of above facts and humble submission, it is most respectfully prayed that the order, dated 7-4-2003 whereby the respondent No.1 has allowed the review of the Mutation No. 19901 dated 17-2- 2003 under order passed by the Collector may be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction, mala fide and result of non-appreciation of law and fact and is also against the decision, dated 8-10-2002 therefore, likely to be ignored and set aside. It -is further prayed ' that the respondents be restrained from setting aside the entries of Mutation No.19901, dated 17-2-2003 may be passed in favour1of petitioner and against the respondents."
As mentioned above, the suit of the petitioner is pending adjudication before the Civil Court qua the same subject-matter and relief, therefore, the Constitutional petition is not maintainable. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has also secured the restraining order from the civil Court against the respondents. It is settled principle of law that the Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in a character and it is good ground to refuse to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioner in view of pendency of civil suit, as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Full Bench consisting of 5 Judges in Ch. Tanvir Ahmad Siddiky v. Province of East Pakistan and others PLD 1968 SC 185. The relevant observation is as under:-- "It appears that a regular suit filed by the appellant to establish the nature of the property, is also pending in the Civil Court. That by itself would be a sufficient ground for denying any relief in writ jurisdiction to the appellant in this case."
8. The judgment of the larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court is binding upon this Court, even otherwise, it is settled principle of law that each and every case is to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and facts of the case as per principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Trustees of Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCM R 2213. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner are distinguished on facts and law.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice and' fair play, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit of the petitioner as early as possible. The learned counsel of the parties are directed to co-operate with the learned trial Court so that the matter may be finally decided as expeditiously as possible. In case, any of the parties fails to co-operate with the learned trial Court to conclude the matter, then the learned trial Court shall invoke the penal provision against the said party.