' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---The private respondents (respondents Nos.3-A to 3-E), who are the L.Rs, of Muhammad Ahmad, have refused to accept service. They are, therefore, deemed to have been served. None has appeared on their behalf.
' They are, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. The learned Law Officer also points out that the said private respondents are actually in league with the petitioners and have no interest in the lis.
2. The circumstances of this case disclose an alarming situation. The petitioners filed a declaratory suit in 1997. The suit is still pending at a preliminary stage as issues were framed after 7 years on 8- 3-2004. There has been no substantial progress in the case to date. The suit was filed against the Punjab Province (respondent No,1), the Assistant Commissioner, Sadar, Faisalabad (respondent No,2), and a private individual, namely, Muhammad Ahmad. The prayer in the suit is of relevance and is, therefore, reproduced in its entirety:- {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The admitted position in the plaint is that the suit-land measuring 1 Kanal, 1-1/2 Marla is owned by the Province. The claim of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that they are entitled to proprietary rights in the suit-land under some Governmental policy. No notification or other Governmental policy has been specifically pleaded or placed on record. Upon being questioned, learned counsel for the petitioners conceded that he was not in a position to cite any Governmental policy under which the petitioners could claim proprietary rights in the disputed land. Additionally, no order, purportedly passed by the Revenue Authorities, against which grievance has been expressed in the plaint, was filed in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to refer to any such order.
4. He then contended, without being certain as to the correctness of his contention, that an application had been filed by the petitioners before the Revenue Authorities for grant of proprietary rights. He was, however, unable to show such application or to state as to when and before whom the application had been filed. At this point, the learned Law Officer pointed out that no such application finds mention in the plaint. The learned Law Officer also submitted that proprietary rights could only be conferred by the Revenue Authorities and that, too, could only be done in favour of persons, who were eligible for the same in accordance with prevalent Governmental policy. No conferment of such rights was possible on persons such as the petitioners, who were no more than illegal occupants of the suit-land.
5. On 24-7-1997, an order of status quo was passed to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners. On 29-10-1997, the trial Court ordered that the case be put up along with some other case. The name of the parties in the other case and the nature of such case were not specified. Thereafter, on the next 22 dates of hearing, spread over 19 months, the case was adjourned for the same purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to state which other case was required to be heard along with the declaratory suit filed by the petitioners.
6. On 15-5-1999, the petitioners filed an amended plaint. Para. 1-A of the plaint states that Muhammad Ahmad (defendant No,3) had filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. For being impleaded as a defendant and the said application had been allowed by the Court. This was the purported basis for filing the amended plaint. The right or interest of the said defendant in the suit property has not been spelt out by the petitioners. There is, therefore, justification in the submission of the learned Law Officer that defendant No,3 was in league with the petitioners and had been impleaded collusively, simply with the object of delaying the adjudication of the case. It appears from the record that Muhammad Ahmad (defendant No,3) then died and his legal heirs were to be substituted in his place by way of an amended plaint. 29 adjournments were taken by the petitioners to submit the list of legal heirs of Muhammad Ahmad. The list of heirs was finally submitted after 20 months and thereafter an amended plaint was filed on 13-4-2002.
7. Thereafter, once again on 18-4-2003, an order was passed,that the suit be taken up along with some other case. The said other case was again, not identified in any manner and nor was its nexus with the present litigation noted in any order. The matter was continuously adjourned for the next 13 dates of hearing until 27-4-2004. On that date, the case inexplicably was adjourned for 5 months, until 8-9-2004.
8. On 8-9-2004, the learned trial Court held that the interim injunction, issued in favour of the petitioners on 24-7-1997, had lapsed automatically under Order XXXIX, rule 2B, C.P.C. This order has been upheld in an appeal vide appellate order, dated 20-12-2005. The present petition was filed with the object of impugning these two orders.
9. The learned Law Officer has, however, pointed out that the petitioners on the face of the record, are trespassers, who have no legitimate claim to the suit land and even, according to the contents of their plaint, they have no cause of action. On this basis, it was contended that the plaint be rejected.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to justify the continuance of the suit in the light of the circumstances, noted above, and in view of the contents of the plaint itself. He was unable to show from the plaint, that the petitioners had any cause of action or basis for retaining the suit- land. In the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that the petitioners have abused the process of the Court and have thereby perpetuated their unlawful possession of the suit-land for a period of almost 9 years. The present petition being without force, is, therefore, dismissed.
Additionally, the plaint filed by the petitioners is also rejected as it does not disclose a cause of action.
11. The petitioners shall also be liable for the costs of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2.