1. ' To assist proper comprehension, and, true picture of successive events, and various rounds through which the litigation passed before it reached this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction, it is necessary to state the facts.
2. ' Some land at village Jheuranwali of Tehsil Gujrat was owned by Gama. He died in 1967. He was survived by a widow, two daughters Mst. Naziran Bibi, Mst. Bashiran Bibi and a son Riaz Ahmad.
3. Upon death of Gama, land owned by him was distributed among his surviving heirs in accordance with Islamic Law of inheritance. Copy of inheritance mutation sanctioned upon death of Gama is available on record but there is no dispute to it. By Mutation No,6401 sanctioned on 12-6-1969, MM.
4. Bashiran Bibi and Mst. Naziran Bibi donated their share of land which had devolved upon them on the death of their father in favour of their brother Riaz Ahmad. Entries in sanctioned mutation were incorporated in the succeeding Jamabandi. Mst. Bashiran Bibi died on 12-8-1974. She was survived by her husband Ghulam Haider, a son Muhammad Nawaz and a daughter Mst. Kausar. They are plaintiffs 2 to 4 in the suit. Mst. Naziran Bibi and surviving heirs of deceased Mst. Bashiran Bibi denied donation of the land in dispute and brought civil suit for declaration of their ownership rights in the land and confirmation of possession over it, after annulment of gift Mutation 6401 stating that it was a fabricated transaction and was not binding upon them. Suit was instituted on 3-6-1975. Riaz Ahmad defendant was served in person, on 14-8-1975, as is indicated by service return of the process-server which bore his thumb-impression. On 25-9-1975, his presence is recorded in the order-sheet and the suit was adjourned to 27-10-1975 for filing of written statement by him. On the latter date, defendant did not appear, and, was proceeded against ex parte and further the proceedings in the suit were adjourned to 27-11-1975 for taking ex parte proof from the plaintiffs. On the adjourned date, plaintiffs gave evidence in support of their claim. Upon its examination, the trial Court decreed the suit ex parte on 27-11-1975. Riaz Ahmad did not apply to the trial Court to set aside the ex parte decree against him. Instead, he filed an application in revision before District Court, Gujrat. It was dismissed in default of appearance on 20-12-1980. Upon the application filed by Riaz Ahmad, it was restored to file on 2-6-1981 for its hearing on merits. On 2-9- 1984, revision petition was dismissed holding it as incompetent because an appeal against the ex parte decree lay to the Court. Request for converting the revision petition into an appeal was turned down on the ground that the period for filing the appeal had long run out. This decision of the District Court was not contended further. On 1-10-1984, Riaz Ahmad brought a civil suit for perpetual injuction against Ghulam Haider son of Ahmed Khan (husband of deceased Mst.
5. Bashiran Bibi), and, Ghulam Haider son of Sardar Khan for stopping them from causing interference with his possession over the land in dispute. Suit did not progress much when it was dismissed for failing to deposit process fee on 11-11-1984. Thereupon, Riaz Ahmad applied for revival of the suit by filing a miscellaneous petition. It also failed on 18-11-1984. Thereafter, there was a short period of rest but again on 22-5-1985, ex parte decree was agitated in an application under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code filed in the trial Court saying that it was fraudulently procured.
6. Respondents who were plaintiffs in the suit culminating in the ex parte decree resisted the application. Application was dismissed on merits on 7-2-1987. The trial Court found that decree was not tainted with fraud. Against the decision, a revision was filed in the Court of learned District Judge, Gujrat. It was dismissed on 3-7-1989 by learned Additional District Judge. Correctness of the decision on application under section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code is canvassed in Constitutional jurisdiction at the instance of Riaz Ahmad petitioner. Sole ground agitated at the hearing was that the petitioner was not adequately served in the suit filed by Mst. Naziran Bibi etc. And the record showing it to be so was incorrect. Having heard learned counsel at length and seen the records there is no manner of doutw that what the petitioner states is not correct. There is strong evidence on record to establish that he was served in person by the process-server of the Court and after service he had appeared in Court and got a date for filing of written statement and then dissociated for a possible chance in future to reopen the dispute at his convenience. There is no reason to discredit the correctness of judicial records which otherwise also received strength from the ambient circumstances. From the record, I have gained a clear impression that the petitioner is victim of avarice and under its base influence is all out to grab the property of his sisters on the basis of a gift mutation already rightly adjudged as invalid by the trial Court. Otherwise, there is no element of fraud or misrepresentation in the proceedings taken against him. Petitioner cannot be helped to retain illgotten gains to deprive the true owners of the property. There is no equity in his favour. Any interference in Constitutional jurisdiction instead of promoting the sacred cause of justice was bound to negate it. Therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere and would dismiss the writ petition in limine.