1. ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---This order disposes of Civil Revision Petition No.42 of 2017 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 21st September 2017 (hereinafter referred as, "impugned order") passed by the learned Qazi Pasni (hereinafter referred as, "the trial Court"), whereby cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed against the petitioners/defendants.
2. Brief fact of the petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and correction of entries in respect of land under Khewit/Khatooni No.115/115 Khasra No.710 with the averments that suit land is the ancestral property of the respondents/plaintiffs same is in the peaceful possession, ownership of the respondents/plaintiffs along with an application under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C.P.C.; that the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was contested by the petitioners/defendants by means of filing written statement along with rejoinder of application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., wherein vehemently denied the claim of the respondents; that in absence of the counsel of the petitioners/defendants and even without hearing of the arguments on stay application, the learned trial Court allowed the stay application of the respondents; that thereafter the respondents/plaintiffs submitted an application under sections 3 and 4 of Contempt of Court Act, whereby alleged that the petitioners/defendants became disobedient to the Court order and during the pendency of the suit they sold out a portion of suit land to the third party; that the application was contested by petitioners/defendants by filing rejoinder and denied the allegation leveled against them in the said application that the learned trial Court was pleased to call for record of revenue through concerned Tehsildar and after perusing the record it was knowing that the sales were effected on 11th May, 2016, 27th July, 2016 and 29th August, 2016 prior to filing of the instant suit dated 29th November, 2016; that meanwhile the respondents/ plaintiffs submitted an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of suit along with section 151 and Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C., which was accepted by the learned trial Court and the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs was amended and added new parties, who purchased the land from the petitioners/defendants; that on 28th August, 2017, the learned trial Court issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner/defendant No.1, wherein alleged that the petitioner/defendant in the written statement as well as in an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., concealed the facts about sale and transfer Nos.11, 12 and 24 of some portion of suit land, which was effected prior to filing of instant suit, as such, the petitioner/defendant deliberately kept this Court in dark and tried to cheat upon; that the petitioners/defendants filed reply of the show- cause notice, but however, being not satisfied the learned trial Court imposed cost of Rs.5000/- upon the petitioners/defendants vide impugned order dated 21st September, 2017.
2. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order suffers from misreading and mis-appreciation of law and also suffer from material illegality and irregularity and the said order is without lawful authority and also suffers from mis-exercise of jurisdiction; that what so ever has been alleged in the show-cause notice nothing has been committed by the, petitioners/defendants deliberately or intentionally; that it was the prime responsibility of the respondents/ plaintiffs while filing the suit must had to file the fresh revenue record, but the learned trial Court has failed to consider this important aspect of the case and to imposed cost upon the respondents/plaintiffs instead of appreciation of record has rightly, furnished by the petitioners, as such, the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
3. 4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record minutely, which. Reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration injunction and correction of mutation entries in the trial Court against the petitioners/defendants. On 29th November, 2016 along with an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., which was contested by the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2, wherein vehemently denied the claim of the plaintiffs.
4. 5.The perusal of written statement of the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2 nowhere reflects that the Suit land was sold out by the defendant No.1 to the someone else, however, thereafter while calling the revenue record from the Tehsildar concerned, it appeared to the learned trial Court that the suit land was sold out by defendant No.1 on different occasions i.e. 11th May, 2016, 27th July, 2016 and 29th August, 2016 prior to instituting of the instant suit i.e. on 29th November 2016, but this material fact was concealed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 while filing a written statement before the learned trial Court. It is further appeared that the learned trial Court while issued show- cause notice to the petitioner/defendant No.1 he failed to deny the same in its reply/rejoinder.
5. 6.In view of the above, the learned trial Court by taking lenient view by imposing the nominal cost of Rs.5000/- upon the petitioner. On appearing of such facts in the knowledge of learned trial Court the respondents/plaintiffs were allowed for amendment of their suit by impleading the purchasers as necessary party and accordingly the purchasers were made party to the suit and no objection was raised by the petitioners/defendants for amendment and impleadment of purchasers as necessary party, which is an admission at the part of the petitioners/defendants.
6. 7.In my view, the learned trial Court has taken very lenient view against the petitioners/defendants for concealment of the facts otherwise the act of petitioner is amount to contempt of Court and they were liable to be proceeded against, but since the trial Court was satisfied by imposing such cost upon the petitioners, as such, there is no need to lather interfere in the satisfactory order of the learned trial Court.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned order, which warrants for interference by the Court. Accordingly the petition is being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine.