2020 PLP 2344 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.

Undisputedly, vide PTD (Exh. P-2), the suit house was finally transferred by the Settlement Department to Ghulam Muhammad, ascendant of respondents, who departed on 05.09.1989 and as a consequence thereof, the subject house was inherited by respondents being widow and minor son of the deceased. It was admitted position that petitioner, who was nephew of transferee along with the latter was also occupying the disputed house. The petitioner after the death of his uncle to maintain his possession instituted civil suit (Exh. P4) on 21.11.1992 (without impleading respondents) only against public-at-large while claiming that subject house stood already transferred to him by his uncle/ allotee through unregistered memo of gift dated 18.06.1989 and finally procured ex parte decree. Having its notice, the respondents/plaintiffs to whom the house had already been transferred being legal heirs of original transferee tabled application (Exh. P7) under section 12(2) of the Code, 1908 before the same Court for setting aside of ex parte decree dated 15.12.1992 (Exh.P-6). The petitioner without denying the relationship of respondents or their ownership, straightaway raised no objection for the setting aside of that decree, resultantly vide order dated 23.10.1993 (Exh. P-8) it was reserved and original suit though restored, yet on the next date of hearing that was simply withdrawn by the petitioner. After complete silence of seven years, the petitioner woke up to institute second suit (Exh. P-9) on the same lines as pleaded in earlier one, but this time only against the respondents while specifically admitting them widow and son of the original allotee. Anyhow, this suit was also withdrawn vide order (Exh.P-10) and soon thereafter the petitioner opened third round of litigation against respondents through another suit (Exh.P-11) relying upon that very memo of gift while admitting their relationship with his late uncle and ownership of the respondents. This time after full-fledged trial spreading over about nine years, the petitioner failed to prove the genuineness of his said hub document and the alleged transaction of gift referred therein. As a result thereof that suit dismissed vide judgment dated 28.01.2010 (Exh. P-12) which though challenged through R.F.A. and R.S.A., but maintained all the way up to this Court vide judgments dated 15.03.2012 and 06.03.2015 (Exh. P-13 and 31). As per available history/record, the petitioner did not assail said unanimous judgments of the three Courts any further, therefore, stood final. After having culminated repeated rounds of litigation in their favour the respondents initially approached the learned Rent Tribunal through ejectment petition to recover possession of the suit house, but failed to establish purported relationship of tenant and landlord. It would be pertinent to add here that once again the lineal tie of the respondents with Ghulam Muhammad as well as their ownership was not disputed or denied by the petitioner in any manner. Anyhow, thereafter the respondents on the basis of their ownership through revenue entry (Exh. P-3) brought suit under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 for recovery of possession as well as mesne profit. The petitioner this time again through his initial written statement admitted the relationship and ownership of the respondents, however during trial proceedings, he becoming impious through his amended written statement, diverted to earlier stance introduced by him in the series of litigation spreading over decades, first time asserted that neither Ghulam Muhammad contracted marriage with respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 was out of said wedlock. The petitioner being (DW-2) further went ahead in stating that respondent No.1 had illicit relations with one Muhammad Siddique and respondent No.2 being result thereof was illegitimate. The respondents/plaintiffs by bringing on record copy of nikahnama, (Exh. P-29) of Ghulam Muhammad with respondent No.1 and copies of earlier pleadings made on behalf of present petitioner successfully nullified his newly concocted allegation so made. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 18.07.2018 while relying upon said unrebutted documentary evidence endorsed the respondents to be exclusive owners being legal heirs of late Ghulam Muhammad and passed decree in their favour for recovery of possession, however the other relief to the effect of mesne profit declined. Being dejected, both the parties approached the District Court, who dismissed appeal of the petitioner, whereas that of the respondents allowed through consolidated judgment dated 04.03.2020 to decree the suit of the latter as a whole. The greed of the petitioner did not end there, who to further prolong his unlawful possession without any fear has approached this Court through petition in hand.

2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner were faced with the above referred judicial record and asked that in every round of litigation the relationship of the respondents with original transferee and devolving of the suit house in their favour via inheritance was never denied, rather admitted in clear terms, who after going through each and every document tendered on behalf of respondents conceded the trend of his client to that effect. Moreover, although through his amended pleadings while raising serious allegation, the petitioner attempted to deny relationship of respondents with Ghulam Muhammad, but before District as well as this Court in memo of parties, the petitioner himself reflected them as widow and son of his late uncle. It is well settled principle that admission once made can never be withdrawn at any subsequent stage. The petitioner in latest round of litigation was estopped to develop different stance other than the one already confirmed before the Court of law. The allegation of illicit relationship was levelled malafidely just to graft a defence to stand on and prolong his unauthorized possession by the petitioner, who otherwise had lost his basic case based on memo of gift and legally/morally bound to part with its possession forthwith, but while entangling the real owners in baseless litigation one after the other deprived them to derive fruit of their belonging for decades, which practice should be condemned, otherwise, the Courts will be more burdened day by day with frivolous litigation under the heap whereof the real issues are also prolonged. It is noted that the amended written defence and statement of the petitioner during trial clearly defied the modesty of an old age widow, which also undermined the personality of her son, while calling him illegitimate child and for it they have each and every right to independently proceed under the law against the petitioner. The Courts are not idle or silent spectator, rather bound to return amanat to the righteous as per ordain of Holy Quran. No doubt the learned Appellate Court through the impugned judgment rightly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and allowed that of respondents, but it should also be courageous to impose heavy costs against the petitioner for his ill designs. The petitioner under his greed, firstly by managing a forged memo of gift and then while asserting baseless allegation prolonged his unlawful possession over the suit property and dragged the widow and his orphan child in frivolous litigation, while wasting the precious time of the Courts as well, who has no case at merit, hence Civil Revision in hand is dismissed in limine with costs of two lac rupees.

3. Before parting with this order, the history of the case and especially the conduct of the petitioner has compelled this Court to require the learned Executing Court to satisfy the impugned decree passed by learned Appellate Court as well as cost imposed herein within next sixty day's even by taking all the punitive actions provided under the law while conducting proceedings on day-to-day basis, if need be under intimation to this Court through Deputy Registrar (Judicial), who will also submit final conclusion of the execution petition before me in Chamber. Copy of this order be transmitted forthwith to the Court concerned through the learned District Judge, Faisalabad for strict compliance. ZC/M-105/L Revision dismissed.