' With the concurrence of the learned counsel for the parties it is being treated as an admitted case.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that petitioners had filed a suit against the respondents for declaration that they are owners and in possession of the suit-land, that respondents Nos.4 to 6 have got no concern with it and that orders dated 16-8-1984 and 16-6-1986 respectively, passed by respondents Nos.2 and 3, whereby revision petition of respondents Nos.4 to 6 was accepted and the suit-land was included in their Wanda and petitioners' revision against that order was dismissed, are against law and facts, without jurisdiction, mala fide and are liable to be cancelled. In para. No,8 of the plaint it was stated that the aforesaid orders were assailed in a writ petition which was dismissed on technical grounds.
3. Plaint of the aforesaid suit was returned by the trial Court with the observation that under section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960, jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred.
4. Petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid order which was dismissed by the A.D.J., Muzaffargarh on 21-7-2000 with the modification that petitioner's plaint was rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Reason which weighed with the learned Appellate Court for rejecting the plaint was that orders of respondents Nos.2 and 3 which were impugned in the civil suit were previously assailed in writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed on merits, hence the said orders could not have been legally challenged in the civil suit.
5. The aforesaid orders of the two Courts below are assailed by the petitioners through this civil revision on the grounds that material points in issue were not adverted to by the High Court while disposing of the writ petition the same was dismissed on technical grounds and that in the writ petition the impugned orders of respondents Nos.2 and 3 were not assailed on the ground of mala fides which was raised in the civil suit, hence judgment of the High Court did not operate as res judicata and Civil Court was, therefore, competent to hear the suit. It was urged that rejection of the plaint by the Appellate Court was uncalled for as Civil Court had the jurisdiction to declare an order void which was based on mala fides. Reliance was placed on Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Muhammad Ashiq and another 1995 CLC 1000 Karachi.
6. The civil revision is strongly opposed by counsel for the respondents.
7. Arguments heard. Revision petition and its annexures perused.
8. A perusal of copy of judgment passed by this Bench in Writ Petition No,974 of 1997 shows that it was not dismissed on technical grounds but was dismissed on merits after considering all the grounds on which the order of the Consolidation Authorities were assailed.
9. Contention of the petitioner's counsel that in civil suit the impugned orders of Consolidation Authorities were also assailed on the ground that they are mala fide and that the said ground was not raised and considered in the writ petition, hence civil suit was not barred by res judicata, is misconceived on account of constructive res judicata which is as much applicable to writ jurisdiction as in civil suit.
10. Case-law referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners viz. 1995 CLC 1000 Karachi is distinguishable. In that case the decision in the writ petition filed earlier by the respondents of that case, was confined to separation of commercial from residential area and about removal of encroachments whereas in their subsequent civil suit they sought injunction restraining the petitioner from demolishing certain shops and further restraining it from disconnecting the electricity, gas and water connections of the said shops. In the said circumstances it was held that the points which required consideration in the civil suit were altogether different in nature which were neither heard nor decided in the writ petition; hence the plaint was not liable to rejection under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.
11. In the present case, grievance of the petitioners was the same in the writ petition, and in the civil suit viz. Orders of the Consolidation Authorities and the relief sought were also the same that the said orders be declared as illegal, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. The matter to be considered in the civil suit was already considered by the High Court while deciding the writ petition except the new ground of attack that disputed orders were also mala fide which could have been but was not taken up in the writ petition. Hence subsequent civil suit was barred on the principle of constructive res judicata and the plaint was accordingly liable to rejection.
12. Impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional infirmity and is, therefore, not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction. Civil revision is accordingly dismissed.