MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. -- Through this Constitution petition the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 08.07.2010 and 10.03.2010 passed by the respondents Nos. 5 & 6 respectively, whereby the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. (filed by the present petitioner) was dismissed.
2. The precise contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are that he vide registered sale- deed No. 1768, dated 18.03.1987 purchased a plot measuring 69 Marlas from respondent No. 3 through his general attorney/respondent No. 4 but the factum of this sale-deed could not be got incorporated in the revenue record. However, on 12.09.2003, through an application he approached the revenue officer for the attestation of mutation on the basis of the said registered sale-deed wherefrom he came to know that the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 had already alienated their total land measuring 03-Kanals, 16-Marlas (including 09 Marlas) to respondents Nos. 1 & 2 through judgment and decree dated 25,02.1992. As such, the petitioner filed an application under Section 12(2), C.P.C.
For setting aside the said decree on the basis of his registered sale-deed. The learned respondent No. 6 after obtaining the written reply from respondents Nos. 1 to 4, framed the issues, recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately dismissed the application being barred by limitation and declared that respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are bona fide purchasers without notice. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent No. 5.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had approached the Court within three years from the date of knowledge, hence the findings on issue were not according to the evidence on record. Further contends that respondents Nos. 1 & 2 have failed to prove themselves bona fide purchasers as they were well aware about the sale and the possession of the petitioner regarding the plot in dispute.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that from the record of this case, it stood established that the application of the present petitioner was barred by limitation, as he himself admitted in his evidence while appearing as A.W. 1 that he came to know about the existence of the decree in the month of January 2003. Even then, he moved this application on 28.03.2006, after exhausting maximum requisite period of three years from the date of knowledge and the application of the present petitioner has been rightly dismissed -on this ground as well as the issue on bona fide purchaser was also proved by respondents Nos. 1 & 2.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6. It is the case of petitioner that he came to know about the decree of the learned Trial Court in January 2003, even then, he did not bother to file any application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside decree/application with the stipulated period provided under the law, which showed his indolence and it is well-settled law that the law favours the vigilant and not the indolent. It is established from the record that after getting the registered sale-deed in the year 1987, he never approached the revenue authority for the attestation of the mutation in his favour. Furthermore, in the month of January 2003, when gained the knowledge that a decree about the same plot had been passed in favour of other persons, even then he did not make any effort to approach the Court with the period provided under the law. As such, the findings of the learned respondents Nos.
5 & 6 are in line with the evidence available on the record and law and have not committed any illegality and irregularity while passing the judgments.
7. So far as the bona tides of the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 is concerned, it is their case that they after scrutiny of the entire revenue record, purchased this total piece of land measuring 03-Kanals, 16 Marlas and no evidence had been produced by the petitioner through which he could establish that the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 were aware of the sale-deed in favour of the petitioner at the time of purchase of plot in dispute. In this way, the findings of learned respondents Nos. 5 & 6 about the bona fide purchase of the land by respondents Nos. 1 & 2 are in consonance with law and the evidence available on the record, thus no exceptions can be taken for interference in judgments of the learned both the Courts below.
The upshot of the above discussion is that this petition has no merits and dismissed accordingly.
No order as to costs.