' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. Through this writ petition petitioner has challenged the judgment/order dated 5-12-2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Mianwali whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner and others was dismissed and against the judgment and decree dated 19-1- 2012 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Mianwali whereby suit for recovery of possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents-plaintiffs on 29-10-2005 filed a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 for recovery of possession of land, fully mentioned in the head-note of the plaint. Written statements by various sets of defendants were separately filed. Suit was contested. Learned trial Court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. After closing of trial, the learned trial Court vide judgment & decree dated 19-1-2012 decreed the suit. Revision was preferred which was dismissed by the learned revisional court vide judgment/order dated 5-12- 2012, hence, this Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring the statements of the witnesses states that the suit was filed after the prescribed period of limitation wherein one of the plaintiffs as well as witnesses admitted that possession was taken over more than six months prior to filing of the suit, therefore, argues that the suit was not maintainable. Only this point has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondents argues that for invoking constitutional jurisdiction and seeking equitable relief from this Court it was the duty of the petitioner to come to this Court with clean hands. Further states that material facts have been suppressed from this Court; that there were 16 defendants out of whom 15 defendants have written an agreement in favour of the respondents and they withdrew their revision petition vide order dated 9-6-2012. Further that the execution petition was reactivated after the dismissal of the revision petition and through Warrant Dakhal executed on 13-1-2013 the possession was handed over to the respondents whereas writ petition in hand was filed on 22-4-2013 before this Court, which is about 3 months after the execution of the decree in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel has provided certified copies of the execution petition as well as proceedings of Warrant Dakhal and order dated 21-1-2013 whereby the execution petition was consigned to the record after completion as well as Rapt No,286 dated 13-1-2013 showing the execution of the Warrant Dakhal, copy of which has also been provided. States that even the petitioner has not mentioned these facts in the instant writ petition and by practicing fraud procured a stay order from this Court on 23-4-2013 and after obtaining the stay order forcibly took the possession of the suit property again using the stay order granted by this Court as a shield.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not deny these facts.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at full length and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
7. So far as statements of witnesses as well as one of the plaintiffs is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has clearly showed that actually those statements have been qualified as the petitioner as well as the other defendants attempted for taking over the possession in the year 2004 and the same attempt was failed and subsequently in Rabi 2005 the defendants forcibly took the possession of the suit-land, therefore, states that the suit was filed well within time provided for filing of suit under the law. In this view of the matter, even when there are concurrent findings of fact with regard to taking over the possession by the defendants, ordinarily this Court while exercising constitutional jurisdiction does not scrutinize the findings of fact recorded by the courts below, therefore, so far as findings of fact recorded by the courts below are concerned, I have no reason to disagree with the findings recorded by the courts below while interpreting the evidence available on the file produced by the parties.
8. Now I come to the second part of the litigation, which is visible that this petition has been filed with mala fide after the execution of the decree where the possession was delivered to the respondents-plaintiffs and further when out of 16 defendants 15 of the defendants withdrew their revision petition and compromised the matter with the plaintiffs-respondents and the petitioner has not disclosed all these facts in this writ petition and after a period of more than 4-1/2 months after passing of the order by the revisional court filed this petition before this Court, therefore, the act of filing of this writ petition before this Court while suppressing the material facts from this Court makes the petitioner entitled to be burdened with heavy costs. In this view of the matter, petitioner is burdened with a cost of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand) and as it is the case of respondents- plaintiffs that after the stay order granted by this Court the petitioner has again taken over the possession under the shield of stay order granted by this Court, the respondents-plaintiffs will be at liberty to file a contempt petition for act of petitioner before this Court as well as they are also entitled to apprise these facts to the learned executing court and the learned execution court will also be within its jurisdiction to re-start the proceedings of execution petition and facilitate the decree-holders for possession of the suit property. This writ petition stands dismissed with cost of Rs,50,000 (fifty thousand). revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.