1988 PLP 1786 (SCMR)

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.‑‑This appeal by leave of the Court has arisen from the judgment and order dated 4‑5‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Constitutional Petition No.1043‑R of 1974 of the respondents against the order dated 7‑2‑1974 in revision petition No.117 of 1973 and 15‑5‑1960 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi and Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, respectively, was accepted by the impugned judgment. Brief facts of the case are stated to be that both .the parties to this appeal were residing in the disputed House No.G/69, Mohallah Gobindpura, Rawalpindi and both of them filed C . H .Forms being claimants. C . H .Form of the respondent Hashmat Bibi bears the date as 15‑6‑1959 on the first page and 15‑7‑1959 on the third page of its Form. She had mentioned in column 10 of the Form that the upper portion is in possession of Inam Ali and Qurban Ali appellants Nos.2 and 3 respectively. The lower portion is in possession of the respondent No.1 alongwith Muhammad Salim Shahid. The receipt of her Form is No.RWP‑11‑CH.100 dated 15‑6‑1959 which according to P.15/16 of Annexure 'D', was entered on 17‑6‑1959. The original record shows that in column of name of the applicant, the name of Shakil Ahmed has been struck off and instead the name of the present respondent No.1 Mst.Hashmat Bibi had been mentioned therein. Whereas the C. H .Form of the appellants bears the date as 13‑7‑1959 and in column No.10 of the Form it is mentioned that only Inam Ali and Qurban Ali appellants Nos.2 & 3 are in possession of the house. On 15‑5‑1960 the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the following order in respect of these Forms:‑ "Applicant eligible. Appendix X correctly issued." On 23‑4‑1973 the respondent No.1 filed an appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi, who vide his order dated 7‑2‑1974 treated the appeal as a revision petition and rejected the same. Aggrieved by the order dated 7‑2‑1974 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Rawalpindi the respondent No.1 filed a Constitutional Petition No.1043‑R of 1974 in the Lahore High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the writ petition, allowed the same by quashing the above‑said two orders of Deputy Settlement Commissioner and Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner and remanded the case to the competent authority to determine the rights of the parties after looking into the relevant record, taking into consideration the evidence which the parties intended to produce after giving them an opportunity of hearing. Hence this appeal by leave of the Court. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents would have no locus standi to claim any portion of the disputed house. It is clear that the respondent, Mst.Hashmat Bibi, had no interest in the disputed property. She did not pursue her claim to the disputed house vigorously. The initial impugned order was passed on 15‑5‑1960 by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner the respondent, however, filed revision petition before the Settlement Commissioner as late as 11‑4‑1973. It is her own case that she was living in the disputed house, therefore, one wonders as to how she was not aware of the impugned order by which the disputed house was transferred to the appellants. There is one more feature which; goes against the respondents. It is a matter of record that her son was aware of the transfer of the house in favour of the appellants.' In this respect reference may be given to Exhs.R‑1 and 2 which would show that the son of the respondent Mst. Hashmat Bibi was; issued a notice by the appellants through their counsel which was" acknowledged by him through reply on 5‑4‑1972, through his counsel, Mr.Mehboob Ali Pervaz Awan. Thus we consider that the question. limitation was wrongly decided by the learned High Court in favour of the respondents. Even otherwise CH Form of the respondent Mst. Hashmat Bibi seems to be manipulated. A look on Annexure 'D' will show that against the entry in CSC‑II Register the name of Shakil Ahmed was scored off and Mst. Hashmat Bibi respondent herein was entered. As per the office record of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi, at Serial No.100 of the CH Form, the application of Mst.Hashmat Bibi is alleged to have been registered on 17‑6‑1959 but it is strange enough that the original application on the District File was made by her on 15‑7‑1959, which could not have been registered on 17‑6‑1959. Obviously this is a clear fraud on the part of the respondents and by no stretch of imagination she can be said to have come to the Court with clean hands. The result is that we allow this appeal with no order as to costs. M.I./J‑28/S Appeal allowed.