2003 PLP 1907 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 12th March, 1999 passed by Lahore High Court whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stating facts of the case are that in instant petition dispute relates to the legacy left by Boota who died issueless, as such initially property left by him devolved upon his mother Mst. Satto being a limited owner and she then alienated whole of the said property. in the name of her daughter Mst. Sharifan Bibi who was sister of deceased Boota. Statedly Mst. Sharifan further transferred the land in dispute in favour of Abdul Aziz and others. Later on a dispute arose between Abdul Aziz and others and Ahmad etc. and ultimately the matter camp up before this Court in Civil Appeal No.56 of 1989 which was decided by this Court vide judgment, dated 14th March, 1989. Relevant para. There from is reproduced hereinbelow:

"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the findings of the Courts below and perused the record of the case, in the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. It is a matter of record that Mst. Satto had received the property in dispute as limited owner from his son Boota and she then alienated whole of the property to her daughter Mst. Sharifan, sister of Boota deceased. Mst. Sharifan further transferred the land in dispute to the present appellants. According to Sharia share, Mst. Satto was entitled to 1/3rd and Mst. Sharifan was entitled to 1 /2nd share in the property left by the deceased Boota and on the death of her mother Mst. Satto she had also to receive her share from her and thus she as stated became owner of almost equal to 140 Kanals of land i.e. more than what she had sold to the present appellants. In our view both the Appellate Courts did not take into consideration while considering the case against the appellants."

3. It may be noted that as per calculation made by this Court in above judgment Mst. Sharifan was found entitled to have 140 Kanals of land. After passing of the above judgment petitioners who claimed themselves to be the sharers in the above property filed an objection petition before the executing Court stating therein that the above judgment of this Court is not binding upon them because they were not party. The objection petition was dismissed on 10th October, 1994. Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by Additional District Judge vide order dated 12-3-1998. The petitioners then preferred revision petition, which also met the same fate by means of impugned order, dated 12th March, 1999. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.

4. Learned counsel contended that this Court has not correctly calculated the share of Mst. Sharifan, therefore, order, dated 14th March, 1989 be corrected holding to the extent that she was entitled to 175 Kanals of land.

5. We are not inclined to agree with his contention because the matter has finally been settled in 1989, and no objection Whatsoever was raised at that time nor subsequently within the prescribed time review petition was filed for the correction of the judgment nor an application in terms of section 152, C.P.C. was also filed on behalf of Mst. Sharifan within reasonable time before this Court. Therefore, after lapse of about 14 years it is not in the interest of justice to review the earlier judgment. Hence we are not inclined to grant relief for the above reasons. Thus for the foregoing reasons we see no merit in the petition which is dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./M-604/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.