1986 PLP 1961 (MLD)

Date of hearing: Ist April, 1986. ORDER. This Civil Revision calls in question the judgment /decree, dated 15‑3‑1986 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby the petitioner's appeal was dismissed.

2. The petitioner prayed for a declaration that he was owner of the land in dispute representing 331 units for which he had allegedly Paid Rs.3,166 as mortgage money and that Mutation No.87, dated 12‑6‑1975 attested in his favour was still in force. His grievance was that the transfer of this very land to defendant No.2 Khursheed Ali by the Settlement Authorities (vide Mutation No.100, dated 6‑8‑1975) was wrong.

3. The respondents resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground of res judicata inasmuch as in the earlier two grounds upto the Supreme Court, the matter stood decided whereby the petitioner's claim to these Produce Index Units was finally turned down.

4. The Courts below accepted the objection raised by the respondents defendants and dismissed the suit concurrently.

5. The basic question was as to how much P.I. Units the petitioner was entitled to. A straight reply to this question was given by this Court in the judgment of L.P.A. No.979 of the 1986 at pages 38‑40 of the present file. He was held to be entitled to 1305 units as against his claim of 1610 units, the excess 331, now in question having been turned down. Despite it, he made payment in the Treasury and got Mutation No.87 attested in his favour in assertion of his claim that he could still ask for land in lieu of those unit as he had got them redeemed. Mr. Najafi for him laid considerable stress that the L.P.A. judgment had not categorically refused him the excess units and that he could, notwithstanding that decision, claim land in lieu thereof especially when those were yet to be disposed of in accordance with law. I am afraid the contention is neither here nor there. If the total claim was for 1610 units and the High Court upheld it to the extent of 1305 units, the rest was refused to the petitioner for all times. He could get only as a "claimant" and his entire claim was worth only 1305 units. It was not open to him to make some sort of payment in Treasury in assertion of title to those very units on the pretext that he was mortgagor of the land. Mutation No.100, dated 6‑8‑1975 clarifies the position that after determination of the petitioner's entitlement by the High Court, the excess units were given to the respondent Khursheed Ali. This appeared to be disposal thereof in accordance with law as directed by the High Court and latter affirmed by the Supreme Court. He in vain tried to make inroads to those decisions and really deserved to be dealt with as a contemner in re‑agitating the same point. The learned Additional District Judge was perfectly right in making ail observation in this behalf. The revision petition is dismissed in limine. In terms of the rule laid down in Bashir Ahmad v. Abdul Hameed and another, 1984 S C M R 689 the petitioner shall show cause why should not be punished for abuse of the process of the Court. I may point out that even the counsel who writes petitions etc. in such frivolous and vaxatious litigation is liable for action. This note of warning should suffice to make the learned counsel careful.

6. To come up in the last week of this month for contempt action. H.B.T.? Order accordingly.