2006 PLP 683 (SCMR)

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.

This order shall dispose of C.P.L.As. Nos.1530, 1531 and 1532-L of 1999 as all these petitions are directed against the same judgment, dated 29-6-1999 passed by the Lahore High Court deciding Civil Revisions Nos.969, 970 and 971 of 1991 whereby a consolidated appellate judgment, dated 1-3-1992 passed by a learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala were confirmed. This order shall also decide C.M. No.587-L of 2002 which has been filed for impleadment of the applicants as party to C.P.L.A. No.1530-L of 1999.

2. One Muhammad Panah owned 3705 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land in village Pindi Bhattian of Tehsil Faisalabad, 394 Kanals and 10 Marlas of land in Mauza Thatha Kareem Dad of Tehsil Hafizabad and a piece of land measuring 1572 Kanals and 15 Marlas situated in village Jalal Pur Nau of Tehsil Faisalabad. He died issueless in the year 1901 at which time besides his widow, namely, Mst. Begum Bibi, his sister Mst. Sahib Bibi and his uncle Mauzam Khan were alive. As per the custom, the entire estate left behind by the said Muhammad Panah devolved on his above-mentioned widow, Mst. Begum Bibi as a limited owner. This Mst. Begum Bibi died on 24-4-1961 and the above-mentioned sister of Muhammad Panah, namely, Mst. Sahib Bibi inherited the said estate. She also died issueless on 6-3-1966 when the above-mentioned uncle of Muhammad Panah, namely, Mauzam Khan is stated to have become the owner of the entire above described property of Muhammad Panah by way of inheritance.

3. One Mehr Bibi the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, claiming to be a daughter of the above-mentioned Mauzam Khan filed three separate suits bearing No.182, 183 and 184 of 1960 of Tehsil Hafizabad and prayed for a decree that being a daughter of Mauzam Khan she was entitled to 1/3rd of the property in question. She had added that her brother, Muhammad Hussain, i.e. the predecessor-in?interest of the present petitioners had deceitfully managed to manoeuvre the devolution of the entire estate in question on him to the exclusion of all others including the said Mst. Mehr Bibi.

4. All the said three suits were consolidated by the learned trial Judge, Hafizabad and as a result of the trial the suit bearing No.183 of 1960 was dismissed by the learned trial Judge through his above-mentioned judgment, dated 17-2-1979 as being barred by limitation whereas the other two suits i.e. the one bearing No.182 of 1960,and the other bearing No.184 of 1960 were decreed directing that the suit-land be divided amongst the parties according to the Sunni Law of inheritance.

5. Mst. Mehr Bibi plaintiff filed an appeal before the learned District Judge against the dismissal of her suit No.183 of 1960 while Muhammad Hussain and others filed similar appeals before the said learned Appellate Court against the above-mentioned judgment and decree passed in favour of Mst. Mehr Bibi in Civil Suit No.182 and 184 of 1960.

6. These three appeals were also consolidated by the learned Appellate Court i.e. a learned Additional District Judge at Gujranwala. Through his judgment, dated 1-3-1992 the said learned Appellate Judge found that Suit No.183 of 1960 filed by Mst. Mehr Bibi had been wrongly dismissed as being hit by limitation and consequently decreed the said suit. The appeals filed by Muhammad Hussain and others against the judgment decreeing suits Nos.182 of 1960 and 184 of 1960 passed in favour of Mst. Mehr Bibi were, however, dismissed.

7. The successors-in-interest of Muhammad Hussain questioned the said judgment of the learned Additional District Judge as also of the learned trial Court before the Honourable High Court through three separate Civil Revisions bearing Nos.969, 970 and 971 of 1992 which were also dismissed through the above-mentioned revisional judgment, dated 29-6-1999.

8. As has been noticed above, Suit No.183 of 1960 was dismissed by the learned trial Judge but this dismissal was not on account of any finding of fact and was in fact on account of limitation. On the factual side the controversy which involved the resolution of the lis between the parties i.e. whether Mst. Mehr Bibi was or was not a daughter of Mauzam Khan and thus a sister of the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners i.e. Muhammad Hussain etc. and whether she was or was to entitled to any share in the property in question had been determined and decided in favour of Mst. Mehr Bibi even by the learned trial Judge. This finding was confirmed by the learned Appellate Court. The three revision petitions were dismissed by the Honourable High Court essentially on the ground that no reasons could be disclosed to interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the learned two Courts i.e. the learned trial Court and the learned Appellate Court. Similar is the position before us. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before us could not offer any reason as to why the consistent findings of the three learned Courts should be disturbed. He could not show that the case was one of misreading or non-reading of any evidence or that the consistent findings of fact were arbitrary or whimsical.

9. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in these three petitions i.e. C.Ps. Nos.1530, 1531 and 1532 of 1999 which are accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.

10. So far as C.M. No.587-L of 2002 is concerned, the same has been tiled by Rafiq Hussain, Altaf Hussain, Zia Abbas, Kashif, Asif, Mst. Rifat Naheed, Mst. Riaz Begum, Mst. Perveen Akhtar and Mst. Nawab Begum who claim to be the legal heirs and successors-in-interest of one Mst. Bakhat Bhari as per para.No.6 of this application which Mst. Bakhat Bhari is in turn stated to be the (laughter of Mauzam Khan i.e. the father of Mst. Mehr Bibi and Muhammad Hussain above-mentioned. These applicants pray for being impleadcd as a party to the above-mentioned C.P. No.1530-L/ 1999 as they also claim a right to inherit a share in the land in question.

11. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Senior Advocate at some length.

12. The suit in question which has culminated in C.P. No.1530-L of 1999 was filed along with other two connected suits in the year 1960. The said suits were decided in the year 1979. As has been noticed above the appeals filed against the judgments and decrees of the learned trial Court were decided by the learned Appellate Court in the year 1992 which led to the three revision petitions before the Lahore High Court which were decided in the year 1999 leading to the C.P.L.A. No.1530-L of 1999 and the two connected petitions. It is after 42 years of the filing of the civil suit and after three years of the filing of the C.P.L.As. in question that the applicants in C.M. No.587-L of 2002 have woken up to assert their share in the estate in question. They never sought to become party to the civil suit nor did they take any steps to file an independent suit to claim their share in the property in question in spite of the fact that they admittedly knew of the filing of the civil suits above-mentioned. Even in the appellate .and the revisional stages the said applicants maintained silence and remained silent spectators. It is not possible for this Court to entertain such an application/claim at such a belated stage. Needless to say that the law favours only the diligent and not the negligent. It may be added that the civil suit and the subsequent proceedings leading to the appeals, the revisions and the petitions before us have only declared Mst. Mehr Bibi to be entitled to her share in the property in question and the judgments passed in the matter do not declare Mst. Mehr Bibi to be the sole owner of the entire estate in question.

13. In view of what has been noticed above, we find no merit in this application which is also dismissed. M.H./N-132/SC????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.