' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---Instant constitutional petition assailed the judgments/orders, dated 11-7-1995 and 23-12-1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge, Jaranwala District 'Faisalabad, to be declared illegal, void and of nb legal consequence, whereby petitioners' application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And their revision petition were dismissed, respectively.
2. Succinctly, relevant facts as deciphered from the record, are that one Yara predecessor-in- interest of the petitioners and respondent No,3 were owners of land measuring 15 kanals 14 marlas situated in Chak No,237/GB Tehsil Jaranwala District Faisalabad, which he allegedly sold through a sale mutation No,17, dated 15-10-1986 in favor of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Yara, the owner of the land, filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction challenging the sale mutation No,17, doubting it as fake, fictitious/forged. He asserted that he did not enter into any bargain of sale with respondents Nos. 1 and 2; did not receive any sale price and did not appear before the Revenue Officer at the time of attestation of the mutation thus prayed that the same \may be declared to be void. He also prayed for a decree for permanent injunction by way of consequential relief may be issued in his favor permanently restraining the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from alienating the suit-land. This suit was filed through Muhammad Afzal Qureshi Advocate.
3. The said Yara subsequently filed an application under Order XXIII, Rule-1, C.P.C. Praying withdrawal of suit through another counsel Naseer Ahmad Advocate which was accepted and the withdrawal prayed was allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 1-6-1987. The above-referred Yara then filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 15-6-1987 with the averments that he was made to understand by the defendants/vendees that his suit sh 11 be decreed but they in collusion with his counsel defrauded and of recorded his statement regarding withdrawal of his suit. This application was again withdrawn on 19-3-1988 on move by some other counsel namely Muhammad Asghar Niazi, Advocate.
4. Yara reported to have died on 15-3-1990 and petitioners being his descendants as widow and daughter filed yet another application under section 12 (2), C.P.C. On 3-9-1990 against order of withdrawal, dated 19-3-1988. This application was opposed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 by filing their written replies. Issues arising out of controversial stance of the parties were framed and evidence was recorded by the trial Court. The learned Civil Judge seized of the matter, through order, dated 11-7-1995 dismissed the application filed by the petitioners.
5. Petitioners being aggrieved of the orders, dated 11-7-1995, filed a. Revision petition before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as the same was dismissed on 23-12- 1999, thereafter, they filed instant constitutional petition which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of record, the same has now been placed for final determination. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are the real contestants, in response to notice by his Court, have appeared and were represented through their counsel.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Undisputedly, suit on behalf of Yara was withdrawn on 1-6-1987. The then, learned Civil Judge besides a regular application under Order XXIII Rule 1, C.P.C. Duly thumb marked by Yara and signed by his counsel, moved for withdrawal of the suit, recorded statement of Yara son of Dad regarding his prayer of withdrawal of the suit and got thumb impression of Yara in the margin of the order sheet duly counter signed by his counsel. Similar is the position on the date i,e, 19-3-1988 when Yara made a statement before the trial Court regarding withdrawal of his application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
His both the statements carry his thumb impression and signatures of his counsel in the margin of the order sheet of the trial Court which were not disputed by him or his heirs. Yara lived for a period of about 2 years after withdrawal of his application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And did not initiate any kind of proceedings against respondents Nos. 1 and 2 or his counsel through complaint before the Punjab Bar Council or in any other form including criminal prosecution. Stance of the petitioners that suit was filed by Yara through a different counsel whereas it was withdrawn by Ch. Naseer Ahmad Khan, Advocate, and that he moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
Through Muhammad Afzal Qureshi, Advocate but the same was withdrawn through Muhammad Asghar Khan Niazi, advocate and thus,fraud/misrepresentation qua the Court was proved to the hilt, has not impressed me to upset the concurrent reasoned judgments for the reason that all the three Senior Advocates cannot be imagined to have colluded to grab the land of the petitioners, in the name of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to whom they were not to succeed and that too, without any proof in this behalf. The other thing, which goes against the petitioners, is that Ch. Naseer Ahmad, Advocate through whom Yara withdrew his suit on 1-6-1987, was arrayed as respondent No,3 in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. And in this application, Yara did not level any malpractice/misconduct on the part of his counsel. According to my estimation, engagement/appearance of different counsel for Yara, goes to prove transparency/purity of the proceedings conducted on behalf of Yara. Above all, Yara had not explained that as to why respondents 1 and 2 accompanied him to make the alleged concession in his suit, for decree in his favor and what prompted them to have sale in their favor adjudged and for what consideration.
7. Under law a presumption of regularity/correctness is attached to judicial proceedings which could not be dispelled by the petitioners, as per judgment; by the apex Court in the case of Fayyaz Hussain v. Akbar Hussain and others (2004 SCM R 964). Roth the orders of withdrawal of suit and application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Were passed by two different learned Civil Judges who have distinctly noted in each orderthat statement of Yara recorded by them were read over to him and his counsel who in token of correctness of the same, thumb marked/signed those. Mere bald allegations of fraud/misrepresentation were not enough to rescind the judicial proceedings, which at the same time were not qua the Court. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had summoned Muhammad Asghar Khan Niazi, Advocate and Ch. Naseer Ahmad Khan, Advocate, to appear as their witnesses as RWs. 1 and 2 who were cross-examined at length by the petitioners but they could not extract any thing to support their case. Naseer Ahmad Khan Advocate (R.W.2) might have been engaged by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 as their counsel, which will make out a case of prOfessional misconduct but would not vitiate the proceedings conducted by the learned Civil Judge or statements by Yara. Averments in both the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. One by Yara and the other by the petitioners, admitted that Yara had gone to make a statement before the Court for getting decision in his suit thus, the fact of making statements before the Court and thumb marking those was admitted. The petitioners' case that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 cheated Yara in getting the statement recorded for withdrawal of the suit whereas the same was to be decreed, remained thirsty of the proof and thus could not be contributed especially when the petitioner No,1 had been divorced by Yara on 7-11-1989 vide effectiveness certificate Exh.R.1: Scan of record and impugned judgments/orders revealed that controversy was correctly put to rest, without committing any error of law/facts.
8. For the reasons noted above, no case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction of this Court was made out. Even otherwise, lawful decision within the ambit of conferred jurisdiction, cannot be substituted on this petition which being devoid of any merit, is dismissed with no order as to costs.