2008 PLP 1588 (CLC)

KAZIM ALI MALIK, J.

Ghulam Muhammad predecessor in interest of respondents Nos.1-A to 1-M, acquired interest and title in the disputed land under a pre-emption decree dated 10-11-1988. The pre-emptor died and was succeeded by his legal heirs, the respondents herein, who were put in physical possession of the suit-land through execution proceedings. It so happened that the petitioners also purchased an undivided share in the disputed joint Khewat and then dispossessed the pre-emptors from the land handed over to them under the pre-emption decree. The pre-emptors/respondents filed a suit for recovery of possession of the disputed land under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, against the petitioners herein. The suit was contested and ultimately decreed in favour of the respondents on 7-4-2004. The petitioners filed a Civil Revision No.9-R-2004 against the judgment and decree in favour of the respondents, which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran, vide judgment dated 4-10-2004. The petitioners challenged the judgments of the learned trial Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, referred' to above, before this Court through Writ Petition No.4917 of 2005, but unsuccessfully. Subsequent to this, the petitioners filed a Civil Petition No.531 of 2006 before the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, which also met with the same fate with an observation that the respondents were dispossessed otherwise than in due course of law, therefore, their suit was competent and the pendency of petitioner's petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. had no bearing on the merits of the suit for restoration of possession. With the above observations, the apex Court refused leave to appeal.

2. After final termination of the first round of litigation up-to the apex Court, the petitioners made an application for temporary injunction in the main petition under section 12(2), C.P.C. before the Civil Court at Dunyapur, which was dismissed 'on 1-2-2006. An appeal of the petitioners against the dismissal of their application for temporary injunction was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lodhran, vide order dated 16-11-2006. Hence, this revision petition against the above said orders of trial Civil Judge and the First Appellate Court.

3. When confronted with the judgments passed in the first round of litigation favourable to the respondents and adverse to the case and cause of the petitioners, the learned counsel unsuccessfully attempted to argue that the pre-emption decree, the vary basis of the claim of the respondents should have been ignored being nullity in the eyes of law. This argument was agitated before this Court in Writ Petition No.4917 of 2005 and was dismissed. This plea was also raised before apex Court in Civil Petition No.531-2006 and was dismissed. After having lost their case and cause, now set up in this civil revision, upto august Supreme Court of Pakistan; there was no occasion for the petitioners to re-agitate the same matter before the Civil Court at Dunyapur. I would not allow the petitioners to nullify the judgments passed in the first round of c litigation upto the apex Court. A decree for restoration of possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, in favour of the respondents has attained finality. The respondents are, therefore, entitled for restoration of possession of the disputed land and the petitioners cannot retain their possession, which has been adjudged and determined as illegal and unauthorized.

4. For what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have adopted a device to nullify the judgments of this Court and that of the apex Court passed in favour of the respondents in the first round of litigation. This is a conduct rather misconduct of the petitioners, which must deprecated and dealt with iron hands. With these remarks, I dismiss the revision petition and impose special costs of rupees twenty five thousand upon the petitioners; which on its realization by the trial Civil Judge through all legal means will be paid to the respondents under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. H.B.T./M-281/L Petition dismissed.