' IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---This petition challenges order, dated 15-12-2006 passed by a learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura, which was upheld in appeal vide judgment, dated 25-4-2007 passed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura.
2. The facts of the case are not being reproduced in extensor as the same have been given in considerable detail in the petition. However the brief facts, in order to appreciate the controversy that has led to the present litigation are that a business concern under the name and style of Rehmat Rice and General Mills was set up by Abdul Ghani, who was the father of Haji Inayat Ali, the petitioner herein and Haji Rehmat Ali respondent No,
1. Respondent No,2 namely Haji Liaqat Ali is the son of respondent No,
1. The father and his children were shareholders in the aforesaid business which was in the nature of a partnership business in which the father had shares to the extent of Rs,30,000 and his sons had shares to the extent of Rs,50,000 each. The father of the petitioner died and the petitioner claimed that his father, who was living with him till his death had given his share in the aforesaid business to the extent of two kanals and 9 1/2 marlas to him during his life time. A dispute arose between the brothers in consequence of which a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed in the Civil Courts of Sheikhupura. The petitioner alleged that he was in possession of the aforesaid land measuring two kanals and 9-1/2 marlas by virtue of the document executed by his father. He stated that respondent No,1 had sold his share, which had duly been demarcated. However, he alleged that the son of respondent No,1 namely Haji Liaqat Ali had obtained a general power of attorney dated 26-6-2002 from respondent No,1 relating to the property in dispute. It appears from the record that on the basis of the said power of attorney, respondent No,2 sold the property to a 3rd party, which has also been arrayed as respondent in the suit. The said party had undertaken construction on the land purchased by it. It was further alleged that on the death of their father, who died in 1979, the three brothers had distributed the entire property through a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction and each son of the deceased had taken possession of his share. It was further stated that Haji Abdul Ghani did not have any share in the property and therefore there was no question of any part of the property being transferred by him in favour of any of the parties.
3. Along with the plaint the petitioner also filed an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. The learned trial Court vide order, dated 8-3- 2003 issued a status quo order. Between 2003 and 2006, the suit had to be amended on account of death of Haji Rehmat Ali whose legal heirs were impleaded as parties by order of the Court.
Likewise, respondents Nos.9 and 10 were also added by filing an amended plaint. It also appears from the record that successive applications for grant of injunction and contempt of Court were moved by the petitioner alleging that the status quo order earlier passed by the Court was being violated. The order sheet indicates that the petitioner also filed an application under Order XII, Rule 6, C.P.C. For admission and denial of documents. During pendency of various applications and allegations that the status quo order was being violated and that a fresh injunction needed to be issued, it appears that another order directing the parties to maintain status quo regarding suit property was passed by a learned Civil Judge on 11-11-2006. However, on 16-12-2006, the learned Civil Judge recorded in the order sheet that the learned counsel for respondent No,6 wanted to make a statement. The said statement was duly recorded. According to the statement, respondent No,6 was a bona fide purchaser for consideration without notice. He had purchased the disputed property through registered sale-deed and that he be allowed to raise construction at his own risk and cost. In case, the petitioner succeeded in establishing his claim, the said respondent will remove the construction made by him at his own risk and cost without claiming any compensation.
4. On the basis of the said statement, which also appears to have been signed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said application as well as the petition for contempt of Court was dismissed by the learned trial Court.
5. The aforesaid order, dated 16-12-2006 was assailed in appeal before a learned Addl. District Judge, who dismissed the same, hence this civil revision.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the orders of the learned subordinate Courts lack legal sanctity and are the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. He submits that the respondents had violated a status quo order passed by the learned trial Court and they were liable to be penalized under the relevant provisions of law.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the petitioner had consented to the statement made by the respondent before the learned trial Court in which he had stated that he may be allowed to undertake construction work for the time being and in case, the petitioner's case succeeds, he will remove all construction undertaken by him at his own risk and cost. The learned counsel therefore submits that the learned subordinate Courts have acted in accordance with the law and on the basis of the material available on record.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record with their assistance. It appears that the suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 12-4-2006. However, on the appeal, the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh. On remand, an application for interim injunction was submitted before the learned trial Court on 12-8-2006 with the prayer that the respondents be restrained from alienating the disputed property, changing its nature and from dispossessing the petitioner. During pendency of the matter, respondent No,9, who claims to have purchased the property through a duly registered sale-deed started demolishing the same on the pretext that he intended to construct a hospital on the same. While the matter was sub judice, successive applications for grant of injunction and for initiating proceedings for contempt of Court were being moved, the aforesaid statement was recorded by the Court. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has attempted to argue that his signatures on the order sheet of the learned trial Court did not signify his consent to what had been stated in the statement and has taken the position that he was tricked into putting his signatures, he has not been able to substantiate the claim through any independent evidence. Legal proceedings and order sheets and the courts carry a presumption of correctness and a certain sanctity is attached to them. Just on the basis of allegations, which are unsubstantiated, official records of the courts cannot be brushed aside or disbelieved. The order sheet of the learned trial Court indicates that the order, dated 16-12-2006 was passed with the consent of the parties and the petitioner cannot, at this belated stage, be allowed to take a different position.
9. The suit which was filed in the year, 2003 is still pending before the learned VII.: Court. In case, respondent has committed any contempt of Court, he will have to face the consequences as and when any contemptuous act is proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that most of the old structure already stands demolished and the respondent has undertaken fresh construction. In case, the petitioner succeeds in his suit, the respondent will be bound by the statement made on his behalf on 16-12-2006 before the learned trial Court and he will have to demolish the construction which he has undertaken at his own risk and cost without claiming any compensation. That by itself addresses the concern of the petitioner. Even otherwise, successive applications for injunctive relief on the same facts are neither permitted by law nor can this trend be encouraged. In case, injunctive orders passed by the courts are flouted, the law confers vast powers on the courts to enforce their orders in case the facts and circumstances so require.
10. As far as the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that the case was fixed for arguments on application under Order XII Rule 6, C.P.C. On 16-12-2006 and no other order could have been passed on the said date, suffice it to say that the order in question was passed with the consent and in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Further, it related to and covered the entire controversy, allegations and counter-allegations relating to violation of interim injunction and initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents. It, therefore, does not lie with the petitioner at this stage to turn around and disown an order which was passed with his consent. It is hard to understand how an additional injunction order and that too in an application for action for contempt of Court, can be issued or would be of any help to the petitioner. Further, by reason of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of respondent No,9, the interests of the petitioner stand adequately safeguarded.
11. It is also noticed that suit has been pending for the past seven years, Real progress in the suit has not been made on account of ancillary matters being agitated before various for a. Enough time has passed in agitating such matters and in my opinion, it is high time that the suit should be decided on its merits. I, therefore, direct the learned trial Court to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order.
12. The impugned orders passed by the learned subordinate courts do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence. The learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or material irregularity in the concurrent findings of the learned subordinate Courts. After perusal of the record, I have come to the same conclusions and do not see any reason to interfere in the findings of fact arrived at by the learned subordinate Courts.
13. Consequently, this petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.