KHALIQ HUSSAIN Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN

ORDER

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.--- Through this Civil Revision, petitioners have challenged the portion of consolidated judgment dated 19.07.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chichawatni whereby the cross-objections filed by the petitioners have been dismissed otherwise the appeal preferred by Muhammad Yar, respondent No. 4, has also been dismissed through the said consolidated judgment. Petitioners have also called in question the legality of consolidated judgment dated 22.06.2012 whereby both the suits for specific performance filed by petitioners as well as Muhammad Yar, respondent No. 4, were dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length. According to the brief facts, plaintiffs-petitioners filed suit for declaration on 15.12.2008 and in the alternative prayed for grant of decree for specific performance on the basis of agreement to sell dated 07.09.1980 was also made. Muhammad Yar, respondent No. 4, also filed suit for possession on 12.03.2009. Both the suits as well as contempt application filed by Muhammad Yar, respondent No. 4, were dismissed through consolidated judgment dated 22.06.2012. Muhammad Yar, respondent No. 4, opted to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree of dismissal of his suit while petitioners opted to file cross-objections in the said appeal. The appeal as well as cross-objections have been dismissed through consolidated judgment dated 19.07.2016. Hence the instant civil revision.

3. When confronted to the learned counsel for the petitioner that when petitioners have opted not to prefer an appeal against the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit filed by them, what will serve by filing cross-objections in the appeal filed by the other side against judgment and decree of dismissal of his suit, states that instead of filing an independent appeal, they have challenged the judgment and decree of dismissal of their suit by filing cross-objections.

I am afraid that how an independent decree passed in the suit filed by petitioners for specific performance whereby suit was dismissed, filing of cross-objections in the appeal preferred by respondent No. 4 against dismissal of his suit for possession will serve any purpose. I have further noticed that the decree sheets drawn in both the suits by the learned trial court have not been appended with this file.

4. In order to substantiate his stance, learned counsel placed reliance upon "Central Government of Pakistan and others v. Suleman Khan and others" (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 590), "Province of Punjab through Collector Bahawalpur, District, Bahawalpur and others v. Col. Abdul Majeed and others" (1997 SCMR 1692), "Haji Rehmdil v. The Province of Balochistan and another" (1999 SCMR 1060) and "Province of Punjab through Collector and others v. Muhammad Farooq and others" (PLD 2010 Supreme Court 582).

I am afraid that the case-laws relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners are against the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. No cavil to the principle that if one of the several parties to a suit prefer an appeal, another such party can file cross-objections but in the case in hand, there were two independent suits though decided through consolidated judgment and admittedly, two decrees have been drawn, therefore, the dictums relied upon are neither applicable in this case nor beneficial for the petitioners.

5. In this view of the matter, when against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2012 passed by learned trial court whereby suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed, admittedly no appeal was preferred and cross-objections filed in the appeal by respondent No. 4 can only be to the extent of judgment and decree passed in the suit filed by respondent No.4. The cross-objections filed in the said suit cannot be considered an alternate of the appeal which was required to be filed if petitioners wanted to challenge the judgment and decree of dismissal of their suit.

6. Pursuant to above, no case for interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction is made out, resulting in dismissal of Civil Revision in limine.

MQ/K-7/L Revision dismissed.