2022 PLP 475 (YLR)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, C.J.

The instant Petition under section 12(2) read with section 151, C.P.C. is preferred by the present Petitioners against the orders of this Court dated 07-5-2015 and 07-3-2015 with the following prayers:- "it is therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting this application, this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be set aside the impugned decree/order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 07-5-2015 and this Hon'ble Court may graciously adjudicate the Civil Revision Petition No.11/2009 to large interest of justice, law and equity".

2. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners have filed a civil suit before learned trial Court Chilas against the respondents by asserting that the appellants/plaintiffs are exclusive owners of water of spring situated in between point and of site plan attached with plaint and the plaintiffs/ appellants are exclusively entitled to irrigate their land by the aforesaid spring water. No other party or people are entitled to interfere in the disputed spring water.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing their joint written statement and denied the averments of the plaint on many legal and factual grounds.

4. The learned trial Court after completion of proceedings and hearing arguments of parties dismissed the suit of the petitioners. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment/decree Petitioners have preferred a civil appeal before learned Additional District Judge Chilas. The learned Additional District Judge Chilas registered the appeal and after hearing the parties dismissed the same and maintained the judgment/ decree of the learned trial Court. Being dis-content with the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the learned two Courts below vide their judgments and decrees dated 22-12-2008 and 03-04-2006 respectively, the present petitioners have preferred a civil revision petition before this Court.

5. During arguments in the main revision petition before this Court present petitioners through their counsel offered that they have no objection if the respondents re-open their abandoned channel on the point mentioned by the petitioners /plaintiffs in the plaint and a decree to the extent of channel namely from eastern side of the aks Shajara be passed in favour of the respondents. The learned counsel further submitted that before granting decree on the basis of above offer a well conversant revenue officer shall be deputed to demarcate the actual distance of surband of point (following eastern) Side with reference to point to ascertain the actual point of sarband point following in the eastern side. Considering the above offer, this Court directed the Deputy Commissioner Diamer for demarcation of the same through Tehsildar Chilas. The Tehsildar Chilas has demarcated the same, submitted his report along with Dasti Akas Shajra before this Court. The Tehsildar Chilas also recorded statements of parties, which are available on file and this Court has disposed of the said revision petition in the light of report of the Tehsildar and dasti Aks Shajra and well as the statements of the parties recorded by Tehsildar Chilas on 22.4.2015.

6. The Learned counsel for the Petitioners argued that the petitioners appointed the proforma respondents Nos.16 and 17 as their attorneys in main civil revision petition before this Hon'ble Court. He further submitted that the attorneys without consultation with the petitioners malafidely and in collusion with other respondents Nos. 1 to 9 submitted their statement before this Hon'ble Court and as well as prepared the map of disputed land and this Hon'ble Court in the light of statement of attorneys disposed of the main revision petition. He further submitted that attorneys of the petitioners were not authorized to sign the impugned map and to get record statement in favour of the respondents. He further submitted that the attorney has fraudulently signed the statement and the same statement submitted by the Revenue authorities before this Hon'ble Court. He further submitted that the attorneys of petitioners have misrepresented the petitioners therefore, this act of the attorneys is liable to be set aside.

7. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents have strongly defended the decree/ order of this Court by contending that the petitioners have appointed attorneys and the attorney have power to get record any statement before the Court on behalf of the Petitioners. He further submitted that in power of attorney executed by the petitioners it is clearly mentioned that all acts of the attorneys may be deemed on behalf of the petitioners. He further submitted that the demarcation has been carried out on the directions of this Court, and the concerned authorities have submitted their report and this Hon'ble in the light of said report passed the order in hand. He further submitted that the instant petition as well as the main revision petition are not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 7(sic). I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Parties and have also perused the record available on file.

8. From perusal of order dated 07.03.2015 it reveals that attorneys of the parties along with their counsel were present before the Court and on the offer of the petitioners this Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner District Diamer to demarcate the actual distance of surband of point (following eastern) side with reference to point to ascertain the actual point of sarband point following in the eastern. On the direction of this Court the Deputy Commissioner Diamer, deputed Tehsildar Chilas to demarcate the actual distance of surband of Point flowing eastern side with other upward and down ward point and the Tehsildar has after demarcation of the surband, preparation of dasti naqsha and recording statement of parties submitted his detailed report before the Court. The attorney and learned counsel for the petitioners endorsed the authenticity of the statements of the parties dated 22-4-2015 recorded by the Tehsildar Chilas and on 07-5-2015 this Court in the light of report of the Tehsildar Chilas has disposed of the Civil Revision Petition bearing No. 11/2009. Further that feeling aggrieved from the said order the present petitioners have preferred a CPLA before the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court G.B and on 20.11.2017 the Hon'ble Supreme Appellate Court GB has dismissed the same for non-prosecution, hence the order of this Court has gained finality. The petitioners have preferred the instant petition after lapse of almost four years eight months and eleven days despite having the knowledge of the order as the order has been passed in presence of parties and their counsel and limitation to file such petitions are provided only three years. The order passed by this Court in presence of the parties and their counsel, therefore, grounds agitated regarding fraud and misrepresentation are not substantiated.

9. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition has no merit, hence, dismissed File after due completion be consigned to record. MH/135/GB Revision dismissed.