1983 PLP 1197 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of an alleged offence of petitioner furnishing of a false surety bond in pursuance of au order of the appellate Court for payment; of arrears of rent (Rs. 21,033) in an urban tenancy eviction case as condition for the stay of physical ejectment during the pendency of the appeal. It is not contested in the petition that as stated in the impugned judgment of the High Court, the eviction of the petitioner had been maintained up to the High Court (thrice) in earlier protracted proceedings. However, in that line of litigation which is now over one decade old, civil suits were filed and objections to physical eviction were also raised by another person Mr. Zaman (stated to be at the instance of petitioner) whom no doubt the petitioner has tried to defend in this petition. But the present matter does not directly relate to the question of suits or objections by Mr. Zaman. In the present controversy, after the stay of ejectment by the appellate Court, the petitioner did furnish the necessary bonds as security for payment of Rs. 21,000, on the maintenance of the ejectment order. He had not challenged the conditional stay order‑rather he availed of the same. The respondent landlord in order to protect his rights under the conditional stay order regarding payment of Rs, 21,000 by the petitioner, sought enquiry about the bond of the surety, namely, Sh. Manzoor Ahmad. Falsehood was discovered in it and the matter was accordingly reported by a learned Civil Judge to the learned district Court, which had passed the stay order; who upheld the report and also dismissed petitioner's appeal against ejectment, which as stated earlier was upheld upto the High Court in the earlier rounds of litigation. A learned Civil Judge who it appears could also act as an executing Court for orders passed by a Rent Controller was requested from respondents' side to punish the petitioner, by virtue of section 476, Cr. P. C. for the alleged offence of furnishing a false surety bond. He declined to do so but on a revision which it is stated was also treated as an application under section 476(3), Cr. P. C. learned district Court directed the petitioner's prosecution. This direction having been challenged in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction without any success, the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal. It may be remarked that the learned Judge in the High Court has in a detailed marshalling of events in this litigation has given a finding of unclean hands against the petitioner. He in his petition; apart from the defence of Mr. Zaman, who started a separate litigation so as to frustrate the ejectment, orders, has while challenging the orders of the district Court and the High Court on law as also merits of the criminal case against him, has not made a straightforward effort to challenge the finding of unclean hands. To quote only one sentence in this context from the impugned judgment to illustrate the .point, the learned Judge of the High Court observed that in this case the "subversion of legal process is par‑excellence". The learned District Judge had also made similar observations in the order impugned before the High Court. In the very outset of course after noticing the facts in this case but before the learned counsel for the petitioner could address his arguments on the points raised in the petition against proceedings under section 476, Cr. P. C. we asked him to satisfy us regarding bona fides of the petitioner in connection with the payment of Rs. 21,000, which was the condition of the stay order which the petitioner availed of and for which he admittedly furnished the bonds. He has miserably failed to satisfy us on question of this payment which was denied by the respondents' counsel who remained present during the hearing. Instead the learned counsel tried to argue the merits of this petition. He has also tried to attack the original orders regard ing the direction for payment of arrears amounting to Rs. 21,000, and it being a condition of the stay order. This latter challenge is much belated and in particular cannot be permitted to be made now after the petitioner took benefit under it and accepted it for a decade. And regarding the arguments on the merits of the petition, we did not permit the learned counsel to proceed any further, because in the aforenoted circumstances, the petitioner without making payment of the amount of Rs. 21,000, and without showing his bona fides, is not entitled to any relief in the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, for grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly is dismissed on account of lack of bona fide on petitioner's part and also on account of his unclean hands as held by the High Court which aspect would also be sufficient to deny any relief to the petitioner in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. S. Q. Petition dismissed.