' This judgment shall decide C.R. No.501 of 2003, C.R. No.502 of 2003, C.R. No.251 of 2003 and C.R.
No.252 of 2003, as common questions are involved in all these cases and proceed against a common judgment.
2. On 3-9-1985, Sultan Muhammad, respondent filed a suit for separate possession of land measuring 8 Marlas by partition. A preliminary decree was passed on 4-6-1991. Learned Additional District Judge, Attock dismissed the first appeal filed by the present petitioners on 18-7-1992. C.R.
No.395 of 1992 was filed in this Court which was dismissed on 14-5-1996. C.P.L.A. No.386 of 1996 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan on 13-1-1997. I deem it proper to mention here that it was duly noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the petitioner had been contending that in the previous Jamabandi area of Khasra Nos.343 and 344 was larger and his share should have been computed accordingly and that this plea was rejected by this Court holding that the shares calculated on the basis of latest record of rights are correct. Same plea was raised before the Hon'ble Supreme Court where it was found that the plea is without any force besides it was observed that if at all plea could have been taken before the passing of the preliminary decree and that once a preliminary decree has been passed, the same having attained finality could not be challenged in appeals against final decree.
3. After completing the said round with the said ultimate findings recorded by the Hon'ble Surpeme Court, the petitioner started a second round. He filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
Before the learned trial Court challenging the said decrees. It was dismissed on 18-6-1997. Revision was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Attock on 21-6-1997. He filed Writ Petition No.1390 of 1997 in this Court which was dismissed on 7-7-1997. Now this Court observed that the application is misconceived and untenable as it is based on plea which was taken in the said first round and was rejected. Writ petition was accordingly dismissed on 7-7-1997.
4. On 27-6-1997, Sarfraz Khan, petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, District Attock. Now he stated that during "Bando Basat" 1980-81, the Patwari in connivance with some parties while changing the Khasra number of land of the petitioner reduced its area from 3 Kanals, 18 Marlas to 2 Kanals, 18 Marlas. He requested that his 3 Kanals, 18 Marlas be restored in the records. It be noted that not a slightest mention was there regarding litigation commencing in the Civil Court and ending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and then commencing in the Civil Court and ending in this Court whereby his plea was rejected. The Deputy Commissioner called for a report. It was reported in the first instance that the application is false. The matter was returned back by the Moharrar asking the Tehsildar to give a detailed report and also to suggest as to what can be done. It was then stated that it be inquired as to whether any suit is pending anywhere regarding the suit-land. The order was accordingly passed and conveyed to the Tehsildar. There is a note dated 4-8-1997 that no suit is pending and no order stands issued regarding the suit-land. This was repeated by the Patwari that no suit or order is there. Thereafter the Patwari through usual magic wand proceeded to make a report ultimately seeking permission to enter the coreection mutation so as to correct the area of Khasra Nos.343 and 344 from 2 Kanals, 18 Marlas to 3 Kanals, 6 Marlas. On the basis of this report, Tehsildar in his turn proceeded to adjust the areas inter se Khasra Nos.314 and 315 on the one hand and Khasra Nos.343 and 344 on the other so as to make excess of 8 Marlas in the area recorded in the name of the petitioner. Ultimately the District Collector appended his signatures to the said misdeeds of the Patwari and Tehsildar, for all purposes setting aside the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan.
4. The petitoner saw to it that the said achievement should be brought to the notice of the public.
He got the news published along with advertisement that the respondent is a cheat and fraud and the judgments of the Courts of the country are also based on fraud. Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff/respondents in these two cases filed suit for recovery of Rs.25,000 each as damages. They stated the entire history of the litigation and complained that having failed in all Courts including the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and twice in this Court, he managed to get the said orders on the basis of Patwari's report and still matter is pending but he has got said defamatory material published causing damage to their reputation and person. Now the respondent did not feel sorry even for a moment and persisted that forged documents were produced and his ownership was reduced from 3 Kanals, 18 Marlas to 2 Kanals, 18 Marlas in, Khasra Nos.343 and 344. He prayed for dismissal of the suit. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit and passed a decree for recovery of Rs.25,000 as damages in each of the case.
The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed first appeals. These were heard by learned Additional District Judge (Mian Muhammad Anwar) and vide judgments and decrees dated 27-2-2003, he proceeded to partly allow both the appeals by reducing the amount of damages to Rs.5,000 each.
Reasons given by the learned Additional District Judge are given below:-- "The plaintiff is entitled for damages. However, in view of the correct stand of the defendant with regard to minimizing of land by Revenue authorities in view of Exh.D.3, damages imposed are reduced to Rs.5,000."
' Both the appeals were accordingly disposed of.
5. Not feeling content the petitioner filed these two C.Rs. Nos.501 of 2003 and 502 of 2003. It will be noted that even in these C.Rs. The petitioner persisted that his area was reduced in Khasra Nos.343 and 344 and this being so even Rs-.5,000 should not have been granted.
6. Having examined the records and hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner in limine stage on 12-9-2003, I found it a fit case for exercise of suo motu jurisdiction to restore the trial Court decree and to set aside the decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock. Notice was accordingly issued. On a later stage, the Court was informed that the respondents have also filed revisions against the said judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. These are C.R.
No.251 of 2003 and C.R.No.252 of 2003. Notice in these cases was accepted on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate on 24-10-2003. All these cases were accordingly heard today.
7. Mr. Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate, has tried to justify the decree of learned Additional District Judge with reference to the contents of the plaint of the respondent and states that the damages have been correctly assessed. He was confronted with the reasons for issuance of notice as he had replaced the learned counsel after hearing whom I had issued notice. It is but apparent on the face of the record that after fighting up to Supreme Court when verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that his contention is not correct, thereafter trying to challenge the decree under section 12(2), C.P.C. And failing right up to this Court with the same verdict that his contention is incorrect, he opted to go to the Deputy Commissioner without disclosing any of the said facts.
Getting the application marked to the Patwari who made a false note that no suit or proceedings are pending and then getting the manoeuvred report whereby exactly eight marlas of land (which area was given to the respondent as a result of the final decree) was got added in his ownership long after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and of the later decision of the High Court.
Learned counsel has not much to say.
8. I can't help expressing my anguish on the state of affairs reflecting on the face of record of this case. Here is a person who has invoked the jurisdiction of all the Courts in this country starting from the Court of Civil Judge and ending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, got the clear verdict that his contention is wrong. Again starting a second round ending in this Court with the same verdict, walking to the office of the Deputy Commissioner with this confidence that he will manage to get the judgment of the Supreme Court set aside on the Patwari's report, and in the said background proceeding to paint the party getting the relief from the said forums blue and black in the local press by getting published news item and also issuing a public advertisement that they are fraud and cheat. It is anybody's guess who else actually has been defamed as well. Thus in the said circumstance established on the record there was no justification whatsoever for the learned Additional District Judge to have modified the decree of the learned IC trial Court.
9. Now coming to the said reasoning of the learned Additional District Judge, he refers to Exh.D.3 which if I may say so, unfortunately is a report of Patwari. This Additional District Judge completely forgot as to what he is putting in juxtaposition on the one hand and then on the other. Even if he had realized and still wanted to proceed further he should have at least read the report before condemning all the Courts in realm. To begin with, this report is based on false statement that no suits are pending and no orders are there regarding suit-land and this was twice stated and thereafter what has been done is that an adjustment has been made in two parcels of land in both of whom the petitioner is a co-sharer. What has been done is that from one parcel of land in Khata No.366 eight marlas have been taken away from his ownership and added to Khata No.367 to enhance 3 Kanals, 6 Marlas from 2 Kanals, 18 Marlas. The purpose is to defeat the decree passed and upheld in favour of the respondents. This act of the learned Additional District Judge is to be taken serious note of.
10. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned District Judge, Attock to be placed on the record as well as C.R. Dossier of the said officer.
11. As a result of the above discussion, C.Rs. Nos.251 of 2003 and 252 of 2003 are allowed while C.Rs.
No.501 of 2003 and 502 of 2003 are disposed of accordingly. The judgments and decrees dated 27- 2-2003 of Mian Muhammad Anwar, Additional District Judge, Attock, are set aside and judgments and decrees dated 25-1-2003 of Mr. Zafar Iqbal Tarar, Civil Judge, Attock, are restored with costs throughout. Counsel fee, in both the cases, is fixed Rs.10,000, to be recovered along with decretal amount at the time of execution of the decrees and to be handed over to each of the respondents.