Indeed, Muhammad Fareed, the ascendant of the petitioners, long ago instituted suit for permanent injunction only against Muhammad Hussain, Respondent No. 1 (now deceased). Muhammad Fareed through his suit claimed his exclusive ownership qua different khasras including area falling in Square No. 325, Killa No. 24 praying for decree to restrain Muhammad Hussain from his illegal eviction. The sole defendant did not appear on the scene, consequently Muhammad Fareed was finally equipped with ex parte decreed on 11.02.1998, however there was some omission in referring Khasras number , who for its insertion himself appe aled and another decree dated 11.09.2001 was awarded to him by the learned Appellate Court with slight modification, which stood final having not been agitated further by anyone. Thereaf ter, on 24.04.2002 Muhammad Fareed, decree holder filed application for initiation of contempt proceedings against the judgment-debtor as well as Respondents No. 2 to 5 while asserting that standing crops as well as about forty trees over area falling in square number 325 Killa No. 24 were put to fire and its possession was taken over unauthorizedly . The ultimate prayer of the petitioner was for recovery of possession of the said property along with some damages, which resisted mainly on the score that no order of the Court was ever violated. The learned Civil Court settled issues, invited the parties to lead their respective evidence and while evaluating the same finally dismissed the application on 26.10.2007, which was further congealed by learned Addl. District Judge on 29.01.2008, hence this constitutional petition to assail the said concurrent findings.
2. Arguments heard and record scanned.
3. The sole question to be resolved is whether after the pronouncement of decree dated 11.02.1998 or 21.09.2001, the decree holder was dispossessed from the aforenoted khasra or not. The respondents produced on record copy of Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 1982-83 (Exh. R.5), which found mention that in particular khasra, Muhammad Hussain, the judgment-debto r being sharer was in its exclusive possession, so it stood established without any doubt the ; even prior to decree, the judgment-debtor was ploughing the dispute area. Moreover , the document brought on file by both the parties further confirmed that they were joint owners.
4. The next drawback of the case was that petitioner while approaching the learn ed Civil Court through contempt application did not demonstrate specific time and date of the alleged occurrence for their illegal eviction by the rivalry from the property under their alleged plough. The onus probandi was on petitioners' shoulder to prove the same without any shadow of doubt, but Ghulam Hussain (PW1) in his statement-in-chief could only deposed that in Mardi 2002, he was evicted from the land. As per contents of contempt application , the occurrence was witnessed by Hayat and Muhammad Akram, but out of them, only the latter (PW2) appeared, who also failed to give specific time, date, month or year of the incident alleged to have been happened within his view, whereas the second one Was withheld. Moreover , no trustworthy evidence brought on suit file to shatter the veracity of copies of Jamabandies tendered on behalf of the respondents. As such, the Courts below were quite justified to refuse claim of the petitioner .
5. The next drastic angle of the case was that the judgment debtor/Respondent No. 1 till this time has passed away , as such to hi extent, the contempt application has become infructuous, whereas res of the respondents were not -party to the original suit/decree, hence n punitive action against them is warranted. See Mubarak Ali vs. Feroz Din and 2 others (1999 MLD 2297 ) and Syed Naghman Haider Zaia and anoth er vs. Zahid Mehmood and others (FLD 2009 SC 380).
6. Although Mr. Allah Bakhsh Gondal, Advocate for the petitioners took maximum time, but could not persuade that either the evidence available on this file was misinterpreted in its true perspective or the impugned orders were result of some jurisdictionl defect, coram non judice or ultra vires to call for interference by this Court, hence are approved and instant Constitutional Petition being bereft of any merit is dismissed.