JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD NASEEM AKHTAR KHAN, J.---The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for seeking a declaration that order dated 6-5-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and without lawful authority and liable to be set aside.
The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 16-3-2000 passed by the Civil Judge, Bahawalpur on the same ground. The writ petition is resisted from the side of the respondents.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Manzoor Ahmed filed a suit for declaration on 16-6-1988. The suit was not yet registered nor notice to any defendant was issued when Mr. Dawood Nasar, Advocate, filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondents and got the suit decreed on 18-6-1988. The respondent Mst. Shamshad Begum etc. Coming to know about the decree, filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 1-12-1988. The said application/objection petition was contested by Manzoor Ahmed, petitioner in the terms that actually the agreement to sell was with Malik Faiz Ahmed, predecessor in interest of the objection petitioner for the land measuring 128 kanals for a consideration of Rs. 56,000 and the document dated 2-9-1981 was executed in this behalf and the said Faiz Muhammad died on 15-4-1986 and through Qabauliatnama dated 13-7-1987 the agreement was admitted by Rafique Ahmed son of Faiz Muhammad. The trial Court after framing the issue and recording the evidence produced by the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Vide order dated 30-1-1997.
The objection petitioner filed a revision petition and the case was remanded by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 8-12-1987 in the terms that the statements of the ladies be recorded. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 252 of 1998 (BWP) against the said remand order which was dismissed. The trial Court recorded the statements of Irshad Akhtar, Faraha Naz and Shehnaz Akhtar through local commission (CW.1) and also the statement of Mst. Shamshad Begum as AW.7. The trial Court vide order dated 16-3-2000 accepted the objection petition and restored the suit to its file for its decision on merits. The petitioner filed a revision petition before Additional District Judge which resulted in the remand of the case vide order dated 27-5-2003 against which the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 2833 of 2003 which was accepted on 18-3-2008 by this Court and the learned Additional District Judge was directed to decide the objection petition himself. The learned Additional District Judge proceeded to dismiss the revision petition vide order dated 6-5- 2008 against which this writ petition has been filed.
3. There is another aspect of the case which is necessary to be mentioned here. The original suit for declaration was filed by Manzoor Ahmed, petitioner, on 16-6-1980 Ch. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate and the same was decreed on 18-6-1988 on the statement of some ladies and Mr. Dawood Nasar, Advocate was appeared on behalf of the respondents. It is also noteworthy that the said Dawood Nasar, Advocate was junior to Ch. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate, who made a consenting statement on the asking of his senior, otherwise while appearing as RW.3 he has frankly admitted that he was not counsel for any lady and he submitted the consenting written statement without seeking instructions from his party. So, the question of fraud as well as misrepresentation is very much evident from the proceedings/ history of this case.
4. In the circumstances discussed above, there is no illegality or irregularity in the proceedings conducted by both the Courts below, The restoration of the suit which is now pending before the Civil Court is just and legal eventuality keeping in view the above-mentioned history of the case. It is noteworthy that such like cases cannot be decided or finally determined on the basis of presumptions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court in his favour. Hence, the writ petition in hand is, hereby, dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the trial C Court on 28-10-2010, who will decide the suit expeditiously after hearing the parties.