M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The history of the case shows that Noor Din, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, had agitated the transfer of the disputed property in favour of the contesting respondents in as many as three rounds of litigation, the last one having come right upto this Court. Having failed throughout, the petitioners filed civil suit to challenge the same transfer order on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud, forgery and misrepresentation. In this round, to, they failed as their plaint was rejected and so was their appeal and revision. The High Court observed that neither Noor Din nor, after his death in 1964, the present petitioners, who had pursued the litigation, had asserted fraud before the Settlement authorities.
2. In view of the repeated pronouncements by this Court (see Abdul Majid v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan PLD 1982 SC 146 and Asif Jah Siddiqi v. Government of Sind PLD 1983 SC 46 resort to civil action for re-opening the matter finally decided upto the level of the highest Court in the country was not proper even on a new ground of fraud which ground had been available but not taken before the Settlement authorities in the earlier grounds. The suit was thus frivolous and vexatious and had compelled the other party to defend itself and now to file a caveat before this Court. We are, therefore, of the view that it will just and fair to burden the petitioners with costs under Order XXVIII, rule 3 read with Order XIII, rule 5 of this Court's Rules. Wed accordingly, while dismissing the petition for leave to appeal, award Rs. 4,000 in gross in lieu of taxed costs which amount on recovery shall be paid to the respondents.