CH. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM ZIA, J.---This application has been filed for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents, herein, for violation of the judgments of this Court dated 27.10.2007 and 25.06.2013.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant petition are that the petitioner and his brothers, Muhammad Iqbal and Mehdi, instituted a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Bhimber seeking correction in the gift-deed dated 21.03.1995. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 04.09.1997 and upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 27.10.2007. Through the said judgment, the petitioner and his brothers were declared entitled to three shares in equal proportion in the suit land measuring 19 kanal 7 marla whereas, Zaheer-ud-Din Babar, respondent No. 1 therein, was declared entitled of remaining 10 kanal land. Against the judgment dated 27.10.2007, the petitioner filed a review petition which was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.03.2008. He moved an application for revival and re-hearing of the matter which was rejected vide order dated 11.11.2010. The respondents herein sanctioned mutation No. 966, at Mauza Sarella, Tehsil and District Bhimber. Feeling aggrieved from the said entry the petitioner filed an application for initiation of contempt of Court proceedings against Patwari Halqa and Tehsildar, Raja Tariq. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 25.06.2013. The petitioner has once again moved the application for implementation of the judgments of this Court dated 27.10.2007 and the order passed .In criminal original petition on 25.06.2013. His main stress is to implement the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, Bhimber dated 04.09.1997 and correction of Mutation No.966 by excluding Tanveer Akhtar etc. He also prayed for cancellation of Jamabandi for the year 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 for the land bearing Khasra No. 456.
3. After preliminary hearing the petitioner, notices were issued to the respondents for filing comments. The respondents have filed the same and refuted the allegations. They submitted that the judgment of this Court has been implemented in letter and spirit. In fact, the petitioner has filed this application for misusing the process of law and Courts and as also attempted to mislead the Court. In this regard, this Court has already comprehensively decided the matter vide order dated 25.6.2013. Even prior to this order, this Court disposed off a miscellaneous application, vide order dated 11.11.2010. By reproducing the prayer clause made in the suit and subsequent contents of the compromise, it has been made crystal clear that the correction is only made in the gift-deed by substituting 1 share with 3 shares without disturbing any other content of the gift-deed. But, the applicant/petitioner by misleading the facts with the ulterior motive pretends to deprive the other donees of their legal rights.
4. The petitioner has submitted written arguments, whereas the counsel for the respondents addressed the arguments at bar. The petitioner has reiterated almost the grounds as mentioned in the petition and expressed his intention summarily in para 10 of the written arguments as under:-- "The respondents have pre-empted the judgments/orders/decree of the court; there is speaking verdict with clarity that land measuring 19 kanal 7 marla should entered in the name of Habib-ur- Rehman, Mehdi Khan and Muhammad lqbal in three equal proportion share but the respondents have also included (1) Tanvir Akhtar, (2) Kamran sons of Abdul Ghafoor, (3) Zulqarnain Hameed, and (4) Mehrban Hameed sons of Abdul Hameed as sharer in the land measuring 19 kanal 7 marla which is sole ownership of the petitioner and his brothers as concurrently declared by this Honourable Court."
' The above reproduced version of the applicant shows that he wants exclusion of Tanvir Akhtar, Kamran, sons of' Abdul Ghafoor, Zulqarnain Hameed, and Mehrban Hameed, sons of Abdul Hameed from the gift-deed, whereas, this claim of petitioner is contrary to the spirit of the judgment of this Court. It will be useful to reproduce here the relevant portion of the judgment in the case titled Habib-ur-Rehman v. Zaheer-ud-Din and others (Civil Misc. No. 144/2008 decided on 11.11.2010) wherein it has been observed that:--
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the record. The proforma-respondent, Mehdi Khan, has also been heard. Basically a gift- deed executed on 31.3.1995 gave birth to the litigation among the parties. The petitioner and proforma respondent filed a declaratory Suit No. 289/1995, wherein they prayed as following:- {{URDU TEXT}} However, the petitioner and respondent entered into a compromise on 15.4.1996, which was filed in the Court, which speaks as following:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Ultimately the trial Court vide order dated 4.9.1997 passed a decree in furtherance of the compromise. Later on the petitioner filed another Suit No. 391/101 for cancellation of mutation No. 418, which was dismissed by the trial Court, however, the District Judge set-aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and passed decree in favour of petitioner and proforma respondent over sighting the previous decree passed on the basis of compromise. However, later on this decree was corrected vide order dated 25.9.2009. The above reproduced contents of the compromise deed clearly reveals that the orders passed by the District Judge, High Court and this Court are quite accordance with the facts of the case. The appellant has not called in question the genuineness of the compromise-deed. The perusal of the grounds of appeal before the High Court reveals that only objection in the appeal was the competency of the application under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and no other objection is raised. The petitioner approached this Court on the same ground and even has not disputed the genuineness of the compromise in memo of appeal (No. 69 before this Court) rather sub-para "D" of para 2 of the memorandum of appeal reveals that the compromise decree has been accepted by the petitioner. After dismissal of appeal by this Court, the petitioner turned round in review petition No. 3/2007 and for the first time, he introduced a new case that the proforma-respondent No.4 has not admitted the compromise, whereas respondent No.4 has not approached the Court for any relief. He has further changed his stance and now claims that he has not made any statement about the admission of the compromise. The perusal of the pleadings of the petitioner, (the plaint filed in the trial Court, memo of appeal before the High Court and this Court and the instant application) reveals that the petitioner habitually twists and misstates the facts. The matter has been finally settled by the Court after proptr appreciation of facts according to the principle of law, whic has no' v become past and closed transaction. The conduct of the petitioner is highly unbecoming and amounts to misuse of process of law and Courts putting in futile exercise of litigation, This conduct of the petitioner is highly regrettable."
5. As this Court has already condemned the conduct of the petitioner, subsequently his first contempt application titled Habib-u-Rehman v. Tahir Mehmood and others (Crl. Original No.3/2012) almost on identical grounds was also dismissed vide order dated 25.6.2013 in which it has been categorically mentioned that mutation sanctioned by the Revenue Authorities is quite in accordance with the spirit of the judgment. Relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows:-- "6. Now coming toward the mutation which has been sanctioned by the respondents in pursuance of the judgment of this Court, the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' From the contents of the mutation sanctioned in pursuance of the decree of the Court, it appears that 10 kanals land, out of total land measuring 29 kanals, 7 marlas, is entered in the name of Zaheer-udDin Babar, whereas, the remaining land measuring 19 kanals, 7 marlas, is entered in the name of Habib-ur-Rehman, Mehdi Khan and Muhammad Iqbal in three equal proportion share, therefore, in view of the above situation, there is clarity in our mind that the instant mutation has been sanctioned and attested in accordance with the contents and findings of the judgment and decree of this Court. We failed to find out any sort of violation or disregard of the judgment of this Court by the respondents." The above reproduced relevant portions of the previous final orders of this Court leave no room for any other deliberation except to draw the conclusion that the petitioner is a habitual litigant who filed baseless cases without any legal or factual justification. The conduct of the petitioner amounts to mislead the Court which also resulted into wastage of the time of Court. Same like the respondents who are public office holders have also sufferred due to such frivolous litigation. The petitioner has failed to justify the filing of second contempt application. The petitioner's conduct calls for penal action against him. However taking lenient view, and in view of the above stated circumstances, this application being without any substance is hereby dismissed while awarding the petitioner the costs of Rs.10,000/-. Under the provision of Order XLVII, Rule 11 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978. The petitioner shall deposit the same within a period of two weeks. The Additional Registrar shall disburse the amount of costs to the respondents @ Rs.
2000/- each. In case of failure in depositing the costs, the Additional Registrar will issue a warrant for levy of the amount by attachment and sale of the immovable property belonging to the offender under the provision of section 386, Cr.P.C.