' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---The facts relevant for the disposal of this Writ Petition briefly stated are that land measuring 100-kanal situated in Mouza 33/D Tehsil Depalpur was originally owned by the Provincial Government and allotted to respondent No.2 under Temporary Lease Scheme. During the currency of his lease the respondent No.2 allegedly entered into agreement to sell the said land with Muhammad Fazal predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 through registered agreement, dated 14-7-1990 for a consideration of Rs.4,00,000. Per terms of said agreement respondents No.2 received Rs.3,00,000 from said Muhammad Fazal at the time of its execution and agreed to transfer its ownership to said Muhammad Fazal after receipt of remaining Rs.1,00,000 on the acquisition of proprietary rights which was then pending before the Colonies Authorities. In furtherance of said agreement, possession of the said land was also delivered to Muhammad Fazal. Along with said agreement the respondent No.2 also allegedly executed a registered irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of petitioner No.6 on 14-7-1990. The petitioner No.6 thereafter obtained proprietary rights of the land in dispute and got the sale-deed executed by the Collector in favour of respondent No.2 on 7-5-1991 on the basis of said Power of Attorney. On the conferment of proprietary rights of the disputed land in favour of respondent No.2, on 13-5-1991 Muhammad Fazal filed suit for specific performance on the basis of agreement, dated 14-7-1990 which was decreed on 19-5-1991 on the basis of consenting statement of petitioner No.6 being General Attorney of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 on 28-5-1991 filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the Court which had passed the decree in favour of the petitioners on 19-5-1991 claiming that although petitioner No.6 was his general attorney through General Power of Attorney, dated 14-7-1990, yet the said Power of Attorney was got cancelled by respondent No.2 on 22-9-1990, hence petitioner No.6 had no authority to make any conceding statement in favour of Fazal deceased on 19-5-1991, resultantly the decree issued by the learned trial Court was without jurisdiction. The respondent No.2 also alleged in the said application that he was never served in the said suit as he was behind the bars on the said date in some criminal case and was released on bail on 23-5-1991. The petitioners filed written reply to the said application and in the light of disputed questions of facts and law arising out of said application as well as its reply, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ' Issues-
(1) Whether the application is not maintainable in view of preliminary Objection No.1 of the written reply?
(2) Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct to file the application? OPR
(3) Whether the application is not maintainable in view of preliminary Objections Nos.2, 4 to 6 of the written reply? OPR.
(4) Whether the alleged order and decree, dated 19-5-1991 is result of fraud, misrepresentation and want of jurisdiction of the Court? OPA.
' Both the parties led evidence for and against. However, the learned trial Court not satisfied with the evidence of respondent No.2 proceeded to dismiss his said application vide order, dated 31-1- 1996.
2. Against the order of learned trial Court, dated 31-1-1996 the respondent No.2 filed a Civil Revision before the learned Additional District Judge on 21-4-1996 which was filed at Depalpur and notices were issued to Muhammad Fazal predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 and Muhammad Iqbal petitioner No.6. It appears that an objection was raised by the petitioners before the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur about filing of said Civil Revision on the ground that pecuniary value of the matter wherefrom the said Civil Revision had arisen, was Rs.4,00,000 whereas at the time of institution of said Civil Revision, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judges was Rs.50,000 hence the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur had no jurisdiction to hear the said revision. The said objection of the petitioners found favour and the learned Additional District Judge, Depalpur vide order, dated 17-1-1998 returned the civil revision of respondent No.2 with the direction to present the same before Court of competent jurisdiction. After the above mentioned order the respondent No.2 filed Civil Revision (C.R. No.1201/99) before this Court.
However, during the pendency of said Civil Revision before this Court, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judges was enhanced, hence, this Court vide order, dated 12-12-2002 sent back the said revision petition to the District Judge, Okara for disposal in accordance with law. On receipt of the said file from this Court, the District Judge, Okara entrusted the same to learned Additional District Judge, Okara for disposal, before whom an objection was raised by the petitioners that as very institution of the Civil Revision on 21-4-1996 was without jurisdiction, hence the said Civil Revision despite having been sent by the High Court was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. This necessitated the learned Additional District Judge to make a Reference on 9- 2-2004 to the High Court seeking guidance about the maintainability of the said Revision Petition.
The said Reference was registered as Civil Reference No.1-C/ 2004 titled "Pervaiz v. Mst. Naziran Bibi" and on 26-10-2004 notice was directed to be issued to respondent No.2 as the petitioners were represented by their learned counsel on the said date. Vide order, dated 26-1-2005 my learned brother Mian Saqib Nisar, J. While answering the Reference sent the matter back to the learned Additional District Judge with the direction to decide the Civil Revision as it was after attending to all the material points involved and objections taken including that of limitation.
3. On receipt of the above answer to the Reference by the High Court, the learned Additional District Judge at Okara, after hearing both the parties, vide order, dated 25-7-2004 accepted the Civil Revision of respondent No.2 and by setting aside the order, dated 31-1-1996 of the learned trial Court, allowed the application filed by respondent No.2 under section 12(2), C.P.C., with the result that judgment and decree, dated 19-5-1991 passed in the suit for specific performance of agreement titled "Muhammad Fazal v. Pervaiz" was set aside and said suit was restored with the direction to proceed with the trial of the said suit afresh. It is the said order of the learned Additional District Judge, Okara, dated 25-7-2005 which is now sought to be annulled through this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of this writ petition has vehemently argued that after execution of disputed agreement to sell in favour of Muhammad Fazal petitioners' predecessorin-interest and appointment of petitioner No.6 Muhammad Iqbal by executing an irrevocable registered Power of Attorney on 14-7-1990, the respondent No.2 was estopped from filing application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Court but erroneously allowed by the learned Additional District Judge through the impugned order. Further submits that even the very institution of Civil Revision was not valid and competent because at the time of its original institution i.e. On 21-4-1996, the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge was Rs.50,000 whereas the matter in dispute involved pecuniary value of Rs.4,00,000, which is evident from the order of the learned Additional District Judge, dated 17-1-1998 whereby the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.2 was returned to be presented before the High Court, which in fact was filed before this Court (C.R. No.1201 of 1999) and was later on sent back to the District Judge on 12-12-2002 on enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Judges. From the above fact, the learned counsel has tried to make out a case that very institution of the Civil Revision before the District Courts was not valid, the said invalidity had to be determined by the learned District Judge, according to the law, prevalent at the time of its institution i.e. 21-4-1996 and any subsequent amendment conferring jurisdiction on the learned Additional District Judge would have no legal relevancy for declaring the said Civil Revision as competent. It is next contended that respondent No.2 could not be considered having acted diligently/bona fide in prosecuting the said Civil Revision because he was well aware of the fact that Revision Petition originally should have been filed before the High Court, as in earlier injunction matter, appeal was filed by respondent No.2 directly before this Court. Reliance has been placed on the case "Mst. Khadija Begum and 2 others v. Mst. Yasmin and 4 others" (PLD 2001 SC 355). It is lastly argued that the learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned order has in fact determined the validity/legality of the agreement to sell as well as irrevocable registered Power of Attorney, dated 14-7-1990, whereas the same could only have been determined during trial of the main suit after recording of evidence.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. So far as the contention of learned counsel that after execution of disputed agreement to sell as well as alleged Power of Attorney, the respondent No.2 was estopped from filing petition under section 12(2), C.P.C., is concerned, I do not find any force in the said contention for the simple reason that in the very application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The respondent No.2 expressly alleged at the time of making statement, Muhammad Iqbal petitioner No.6 had no authority to give consent and allow the suit of petitioners Nos.1 to 5 to be decreed against the said respondent, as by that time the alleged Power of Attorney in his favour had been revoked/got cancelled through Revocation Deed, dated 22-9-1990 and this fact is itself proved by the certified copy of Revocation Deed of Power of Attorney appended with this petition as Annex.G, whereas the decree in dispute was got from the trial Court on 19-5-1991. A perusal of the file further reveals that suit for specific performance by the predecessor-in-interest of petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 was filed on 13-5-1991, on which date notice was ordered to be issued for 19-5-1991 in the stay matter and summons were ordered to be issued in the main suit for 29-5-1991 but without waiting for 29-5-1991, Muhammad Iqbal petitioner No.6 voluntarily appeared before the trial Court and got the suit decreed on 19-5- 1991 by 'making a consenting statement on the basis of Power of Attorney, dated 14-7-1990 intentionally or unknowingly that the same stood revoked on 22-9-1990. It is therefore, established that not only the petitioners showed their anxiety in getting the suit decreed but at the same time also the trial Court acted in an unnecessary haste while passing the impugned decree, even without waiting for the return of summons issued for the service of respondent No. 2 in the main suit for 29-5-1991. Although, allegation of respondent No. 2 that he was arrested in some criminal case w.e.f. 5-5-1991 to 23-5-1991 and never received any notice or summons allegedly issued by the trial Court is not without force, yet without considering the said allegation, suffice it to say that the manner in which decree was obtained from the civil Court can neither be approved on any legal plane nor such type of decree can be allowed to remain on the record having been passed in a short-circuit manner and to me the procedure adopted by the trial Court also shows collusion between the petitioners and the Court and to maintain such type of decree shall be a mockery of law, hence, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is turned down being not supported by any law or record.
7. As regards the contention of learned counsel about improper filing of revision by respondent No.2 in a wrong Forum at the relevant time and the way it was subsequently dealt with by the District Judge as well as this Court, is concerned, I do not feel that such lapse can only be attributed to respondent's negligence rather the same is also an act of the Court, especially of learned District Judge or the Additional District Judge who originally entertained the said Civil Revision without determining its maintainability and by keeping the same pending from 21-4-1996 to 17-1-1998 without raising any objection, B hence the respondent No.2 cannot be non-suited on this score. It is an established principle of law that an act of Court should not prejudice any person nor any person should suffer for the act or omission of the Court. Reliance is placed on the case reported in PLD 2005 SC 842 and 2005 SCM R 720. The findings of the learned Additional District Judge about maintainability of the Civil Revision therefore, need no interference.
8. Finally, the contention of learned counsel that the learned Additional District Judge by passing the impugned order has in fact determined the validity/legality of main agreement to sell as well as of irrevocable registered Power of Attorney, to me is not based on cogent reasoning rather the same is the outcome of mere apprehension. However, it is made clear that whatever findings have been recorded by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order, the same shall be considered purely as tentative in nature and shall have no bearing at all on the final decision of the suit, which shall be decided after recording of evidence and in the light of evidence produced by the parties as well as the law.
9. For what has been discussed above, I find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine.