1996SCMR1071 (PLP)

ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.

The petitioners, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dated 22-11-1995 dismissing their revision petition (CR 2992/94) filed against the orders of the Courts below refusing to grant them interim relief.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that one Mir Dad was the owner of the land measuring 144 Kanals 14 Marlas situate in Chak No. 106/GB, Tehsil and District Faisalabad. On his death about 50 years ago, the said land devolved on his widow, Mst. Maddo who is stated to have transferred the same to Mir Dad's nephew, Mulla, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners by means of a ' Hiba' on 9-3-1950. The ' Hiba' in question was challenged by the collaterals of Mir Dad in a suit which was decreed on 12-2-1952 and it was held that the ' Hiba' in favour of Mulla was ineffective qua the rights of the reversioners to succeed after the death of Mst. Maddo. This decree, it is admitted by the learned counsel, was not challenged in any higher Court. It, thus, attained finality. It appears that in 1971, the said Mulla filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership of the land in dispute on the basis of adverse possession. This suit was decreed by the Trial Court but on appeal, Trial Court's decree was modified by a learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 15-11-1981 declaring the plaintiff, Mulla (deceased) to be the owner of 3/16 share in the disputed land which share it. was directed, shall devolve on his legal heirs.

3. The petitioners continued to be in possession of the whole of the land. Some of the respondents brought a suit in the Revenue Courts claiming share of the produce which suit was decreed by Assistant Commissioner/Collector on 28-8-1990. Appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner and their revision petition, too, was rejected by the Board of Revenue by order dated 27-2-1993. Petitioners assailed the orders of the Revenue Courts in a civil suit claiming therein that they were the owners of the land in dispute on the basis of an oral exchange and that the orders of the Revenue Courts allowing share of the produce to the respondents, were wholly illegal. In the suit, petitioners also sought interim injunctive order so as to suspend the impugned orders of the Revenue Courts. Their application for interim relief was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide an order dated 26-3-1993 holding, inter alia, that the Revenue Courts were fully competent to pass the orders impugned in the suit and the petitioners, therefore, did not have any arguable case. Order of the Trial Court has been upheld by the learned Additional District Judge and the petitioners' revision petition, as stated above, has also been dismissed by a learned Judge in the High Court.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also perused the impugned orders. It has been held by the learned Judge in the High Court:-- "The rights of the parties have finally been determined in two rounds of litigation by the Civil Court which is not further challenged by the parties and mutation stands sanctioned in respect of the judgments of the civil as well as Appellate Court which remained unchallenged so far. The jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts was no where challenged by the present petitioners and the decree for produce has been further challenged before the competent Revenue Courts and those judgments in no way suffer from any infirmity of law and up to the Board of Revenue the judgments passed by the Revenue Courts have attained finality and the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Additional District Judge have rightly refrained to interfere into the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts in view of section 56 of the Specific Relief Act." Learned counsel has not disputed the findings recorded in the impugned judgment of the High Court that the rights of the parties qua the land in dispute stood finally determined in the earlier two rounds of litigation in the Civil Courts. Orders of the Revenue Courts allowing the share of the produce to the respondents hold the field unless set aside and until then, the respondents cannot be deprived of the fruits of those orders. In the circumstances, refusal of interim relief sought by the petitioners cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity of a nature warranting interference by this Court. This petition is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. A.A./M-3232/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.