1996 PLP 840 (CLC)

3. This order, has now been challenged by the appellants under section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 19‑3‑1985 passed by the District Judge, Gilgit, in appeal against the judgment/decree dated 31‑7‑1982 of the Civil Judge, Gilgit. They have also filed an application for ad interim injunction against respondents Nos. l to 3 and a status quo order was passed by the District Judge on 21‑4‑1993. The learned counsel for the appellants raised the following point during the course of arguments that respondent No.4 has disposed of his property in village Somal and settled at Gupis and has, therefore, lost his right of grazing in pasture of Somal. In a netshell, the learned counsel for appellants stated that from the facts of case, the appellants had a prima facie and a stay order was issued in their favour, but not clear. So the present appellants moved an application for clarification on 28‑10‑1993 in the Court of District Judge, Gilgit. Replication by respondent No. l and rejoinder by respondent No.4 have also been brought on file of the Court of District Judge, Gilgit. The learned counsel for appellants also urged at the bar that after dismissal of the appeal for non‑prosecution, the respondents did not move the Court of the Collector for implementation of his order passed on the basis of Award dated 10‑4‑1981. It was also argued by the counsel for the appellants that in April 1993 respondents wanted to make a bridge and the appellants came to know about it... He repeated his arguments that (i) his clients have a prima facie case; (ii) pasture is at their next door, and (iii) balance of convenience is also in favour of the appellants and also cited 1986 SCMR (a) page 1496 and 1985 CLC (g) page 217 in support of his arguments. On the other hand in reply to the arguments of Mr. Muhammad Shafi counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ghulam Sarwar Mir, Advocate made the following submissions (i) that the dispute between the parties relates to demarcation of the boundary of the disputed pastures, (ii) 2ndly that in 1945 when Indian Assistant Political Agent used to sit at Gilgit and was controlling the areas of Gilgit and Gupis, vide order dated 25‑1‑1945 of the then Indian Assistant Political Agent, the boundaries of the disputed pastures were fixed, (iii) that after demarcation parties used to graze their cattle in their respective boundaries from 1945 to 1981. In 1981 the present appellants Zamindaran Soma] represented by Mr. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate started interference in the boundaries of the pastures of Zamindaran Raushan. Zamindaran Raushan submitted an application to the Tehsildar that Zamindaran Soma] be restrained from interference in their pastures, for which boundary was fixed by the then Indian Assistant Political Agent in 1945. So far the demarcation of the land is concerned it is the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue authorities as mentioned in section 172 of the Land Revenue Act. Tehsildar Gupis, vide his order dated 21‑1‑1981 being Revenue Officer directed Zamindaran Somal not to interfere in the boundaries of Zamindaran Raushan and the learned S.D. M./Assistant Collector Ist Grade vide his order dated 5‑2‑1981 concurred/agreed with the order of the Tehsildar dated 21‑1‑1981. Zamindaran Somal being aggrieved froth the order of Tehsildar Gupis dated 21‑1‑1981 and order of S.D.M. dated 5‑219$1 filed an appeal before the Collector/Revenue forum and before the Collector parties mutually agreed and settled their dispute through a penal of Ulemah and these Ulemah were appointed with the mutual consent and fish of the pies and Ulema went to the spot and after spot inspection they gave oath to Zamindaran Raushan in the presence of Zamindaran of Somal regarong the point of boundary. And on Holy Qur'an the Zamindaran Raushan took oath. Then the Ulemah submitted their Award and the Collector vide his judgment/order/decision dated 26‑8‑1981 made the Award as rule of the Court. The chapter should have been Closed at that time, because demarcation is the job of Revenue Authorities. PLD 1977 SC page

220. There should have been an end but the Zamindaran Somal challenged the order dated 26‑8‑1981 of Collector in Civil Court after taking evidence pro and contra the Civil Judge dismissed the suit of present appellants vide his jladgment dated 31‑7‑1982. And being aggrieved from this judgment dated 31‑7‑1982 Zamindaran Somal filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge, Gilgit, where the appeal remained for adjudication for 2‑1/2 years and finally it was dismissed on the statement of Mr. Muhammad Isa, Advocate for non‑prosecution who stated at the Bar that his clients did not give any instructions to him and finally the appeal was dismissed for non‑prosecution on 19‑3‑1985. And the Zamindaran Somal remained mum for full 8 years and after availing the services of Mr. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate, they challenged the judgment dated 19‑3‑1985 through application under section 12(2) of C.P.C. dated 20‑4‑1993 alongwith an application for ad interim injunction against respondents Nos. l to

3. The learned District Judge while admitting the petition through his order dated 21‑4‑1993 issued injunction by maintaining status quo till further orders. The order was very much clear, through which status quo was maintained, but the office instead of issuing the Urdu memo. in consonance of the order of District Judge issued injunction whereby the respondents Zamindaran Raushan were restrained from interference in the disputed pasture. The clerical error was brought to the notice of District Judge who issued fresh order whereby the earlier wrong injunction issued by the office on 21‑4‑1993 was' corrected and the order of status quo was issued on 17‑8‑1993. The Zamindaran of Somal after correction of the order of injunction moved an application on 28‑10‑1993 for clarification of the order of the District Judge dated 17‑8‑1993 whereby status quo was maintained and the learned District Judge vide his order dated 16‑12‑1993 interpreted the status quo in clear words and declared that respondents are entitled to graze their cattle in the disputed pastures and said order was challenged in this Court in the shape of the present appeal. Let us revert to the impugned order. The order in question is very much clear and correct. So far the legal and factual position of the case is concerned the present appellants have no prima facie case in the eyes of law because through the litigation all the decisions are in favour of respondents Zamindaran Raushan. The respondents are enjoying the disputed pastures since 1945, through valid judgments and decrees, the conduct of the present appellants disentitles them to get the interim relief because they remained mum for 8 years to question the judgment dated 19‑3‑1985. The appellants are bound by the act of their agent Wazir Mir Akbar and the act of their counsel Mr. Muhammad Isa, Advocate and if they are aggrieved, they should sue their agent/representative Wazir Mir Akbar because it is a settled principle of law, justice and equity that parties are bound by the acts of their agents/pleaders. In view of the above discussion while maintaining the impugned judgment/order dated 16‑12‑1993 the appeal stands dismissed. A.A./5/Gilgit Appeal dismissed.