' The petitioner brought a suit for specific performance of contract of sale in respect of Khasra No.774/316 measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas situated in Lahore Cantt. in the area of village Kauray against Abdul Rashid, respondent No.1 on 6-4-1987 on the basis of an agreement to sell, dated 9- 8-1986. The respondent was proceeded against ex parte on 11-7-1987. When the suit was pending for ex parte evidence, respondent No.2 made an application for becoming party to the proceedings, saying that he was owner of Khasra No.776/316 measuring 2 Kanals 12 Marlas on the basis of a sale-deed. The application was accepted on 21-9-1987 after a contest and the petitioner was asked to file amended plaint after impleading him as an added defendant. He filed amended plaint accordingly and also applied for stay order but his application was dismissed on 19-1-1988 and also the suit. The petitioner filed a review application which was dismissed on 7-5-1988.
Aggrieved by these two orders, he filed an appeal but that too was dismissed on 2-6-1990. In all the three matters referred to above the Courts below were of the view that the petitioner and respondent No.2 had already twice litigated up to the Supreme Court and the matter could not be reopened.
2. It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.2 had recently got a fresh mutation sanctioned from the Revenue Authorities, as a result of which Khasra No.776/316 measuring 2 Kanals 14 Marks, allegedly purchased by him, had been substituted by Khasra No.774/316, which, beingaltogether a separate piece of land situated across the main Walton Road, had consistently been claimed by the petitioner as his property. According to the learned counsel, this recent change in the Revenue Record at the instance of respondent No.2 himself, went a long way in establishing petitioner's claim that Khasra No.374/316 measuring 3 Kanals 19 Mamas situated in the area of village Kauray was separate and distinct property, having been purchased by him (petitioner) and having been in his possession from the very inception, on which he had built even a house and it did not belong to respondent No.2, in whose favour ejectment order was wrongly passed on account of some misconception and misdiscription of the property and persuant to which the petitioner was illegaly ejected through the executing Court.
3. It was contended that the learned trial Judge, while disposing of the stay application of the petitioner, also proceeded to dismiss his suit and this short-cut procedure was never approved by the superior Courts. Finally, it was urged that the Courts below stood unnecessarily impressed by the decision of the forums on the rent side, particularly by the decision of the High Court and the Supreme Court in the ejectment proceedings, and to remove this impression the petitioner moved the Honourable Supreme Court and in its order, dated 9-6-1990 passed on CMP No.238 of 1989 moved in C.P. No.225 of 1989 it was pleased to observe that we have no doubt that the High Court will decide the matter strictly on merits of the case brought before it, without being influenced by extraneous matter" and as such this Court was not to take into consideration the orders passed by various forums on the rent side.
4. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of respondent No.2, who put in appearance in response to the notice for pre-admission hearing, that change in the number of Khasra in the Revenue Record was brought about by the Revenue authorities themselves and it did not give any fresh cause of action to the petitioner to re-open the matter which stood decided right up to the level of the Supreme Court. It was contended that the disputed property consisting of a bungalow was rented out by respondent No.2 to the petitioner and he went on paying rent for a considerable period until he denied the title of respondent No.2 which necessitated the initiation of ejectment proceedings against him and in those proceedings he remained unsuccessful in each and every forum right up to the level of the Supreme Court. According to the learned counsel, with a view to frustrate the decisions of various Courts on the rent side, he had, even at the risk of committing contempt of those forums, brought a frivolous suit, which was rightly dismissed by the Courts below . He contended that being a mala fide action, it was rightly disposed of at the initial stage and the observation made by the Supreme Court in the petitioner's C.M.P. being of general nature, could easily be complied with even by this Court. He pointed out that in the third round of litigation (the present one, according to him, is 4th one) when the petitioner filed R.S.A. No.151 of 1988, which was ultimately found to be not maintainable, the petitioner's counsel, who was then appellant's counsel, had to submit unconditional apology when a notice was issued to him by Mr. Justice Akhtar Hassan for reagitating the same question again and again after it had been finalised at the highest level, but he again brought the suit giving rise to this civil revision and in these circumstances he and his client both were to be proceeded against for the contempt of Court.
Later the petitioner had also submitted apology, he added.
4-A. The record shows that the ejectment application moved by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for his ejectment from the disputed property consisting of a bungalow in Lahore Cantonment was accepted by the Cantonment Rent Controller on 22-1-1987. The petitioner's F.A.O.
No.12 of 1987 failed in the High Court on 21-3-1987. His petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court. When his opponent took out execution proceedings, he filed an objection petition on the same ground on which he had contested the ejectment petition but on its dismissal by the executing Court, he again came up before the High Court and filed R.SA. No.151 of 1988. On office objection it was found to be not maintainable and the same was dismissed in limine, vide order, dated 19-12-1988, even after considering it on merits as a revision. He again went to the Supreme Court but again he remained unsuccessful as his C.P.S.LA. No. 225 of 1989 was dismissed on 7-3-1989. Meanwhile on 6-4-1987 he brought a suit against one Abdul Rashid for specific performance of contract agreement to sell, dated 9-8-1986. As already noted in the narration of facts, this suit was dismissed on 19-1-1988 and he brought this civil revision after the dismissal of his appeal by the District Court. It is admittedly the third (if not the fourth) round of litigation between the parties in respect of the same property and in each round the contention of the petitioner has been that the disputed bungalow was situated in Khasra No.774/316 measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas in the area of village Kaura within Lahore Cantonment, which belonged to him and it was not located in Khasra No.776/316 of that village, which property belonged to respondent No.2 and he went on claiming as his own. This question has already been exhaustively dealt with and adjudicated upon by all the forums on the rent side right from the Rent Controller, Cantonment, up to the Supreme Court, particularly by my learned brother Mr. Justice Akhtar Hassan in his detailed judgment, dated 21-3-1987, in FA.O. No.12 of 1987 and it was finally settled that the disputed bungalow belonged to respondent No.2 and the status of the petitioner was only that of a defaulting tenant in its occupation, liable to be ejected therefrom and he was eventually ejected persuant to the execution taken out by respondent No.2.
5. During the course of hearing before this Court, the petitioper (who interrupting his counsel sought permission to explain certain aspects of the case himself and was allowed to do so) almost reiterated the same contentions . which he had raised before the learned Bench dealing with his F.A.O. No.12 of 1987 in support of his title to the disputed property. During his address when he, inter alia, stressed the point of his having paid the compensation by instalments to respondent No.2 for latter's constructing the bungalow over his plot on account of some misunderstanding, and he was asked by this Court to mention the names of the respectables constituting `punchair with whose intervention the terms of compromise between him and respondent No.2 were settled and the document written in this regard, he expressed his inability to name them and to produce any document. Thus, on this point he stood thoroughly exposed and like his counsel again reverted to the recent change in the Revenue Record. He contended that he was owner of Khasra No.774/316 measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas, which he had purchased from Abdul Rashid respondent No.1 in 1975, vide receipt, dated 10-1-1975 and agreement to sell now forming basis of his claim in the suit, out of which this civil revision has arisen, was executed later on 9-8-1986 when he paid the remaining half sale price of Rs.10,000 to him. On this point too, when he was asked as to whether lie could bring Abdul Rashid respondent No.1 in this Court to assure it that there was really any person having this identity, he bagged down, being unable to produce him.
6. Now I deal with the allegedly changed entries of Revenue Record, which, according to the petitioner and his counsel, are the new piece of evidence justifying the fresh round of litigation. It may be noted here that it was not a document of his reliance in the suit, being non-existent at the time it was instituted. Petitioner's counsel has, under the directions of this Court, brought on the paper book the copy of those entries, which is the correction Mutation No.15840, dated 6-7-1989 of village Kaura, Tehsil Cantt., District Lahore, sanctioned under the orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore. It is lengthy document pertaining to a number of sale transactions concerning a number of persons as vendors and vendees and a number of Khasra numbers and their sub-divisions (Tatimajat).
7. Here it may be observed that this mutation was sanctioned during the pendency of the petitioner's appeal arising out of the suit giving rise to this revision and being hit by the principle of lis pendens does not take effect so far as the disputed property is concerned and neither party can avail of it, muchlcss the petitioner. Anyhow, from the entries of field book given on the reverse of the document, it appears that originally there was only one main Khasra number bearing No.316-min, total measuring 15 Kanals 10 Marlas. It was then split up into three parts i.e. Khasra No.774/316 measruing 3 Kanals 19 Marlas, 775/316 measuring 3 Kanals 18 Marlas, and Khasra No.776/316 measuring 7 Kanals 13 marlas. These Khasra numbers belonged to a number of owners of village Kaura and they went on selling small portions thereof to different persons at different occasions. As a result of these sales, the aforesaid three sub-divisions of original Khasra No.316-min were further sub-divided into 15 portions, each pertaining to a separate sale transaction. It appears that Allah Rakha Hissadar-owner had sold a piece of land measuring 2 Kanals 12 Marlas out of Khasra No.3830/776/316 to Farooq Ahmad son of Muhammad Rafiq, respondent No.2 herein; but perhaps the land so sold was a portion of Khasra No.774/316-min which in the field book was later described as 774/316/11 measuring 2 Kanals 14 Marlas, because Khasra No.3831/776/316, as per entry of field book, also included Khasra No.775/316-min and 4 portions bore these two Khasra numbers with an aggregate area of 2 Kanals 16 Marlas. Out of these four portions, one portion measuring 6 Marlas was purchased by Shahida Hakeem, another portion measuring 5 Marlas by Abdul Waheed, third portion measuring 1 Kanal 19 Marlas by Mst. Afshan Azam, all from Ghulam Muhammad etc. Hissadar-owners, and fourth portion measuring 6 Marlas by Majeedan Bibi from Begum Bibi etc. Hissadar-owners. Thus, respondent No.2, who was originally shown to have purchased a piece of land measuring 2 Kanals 12 Marlas bearing Khasra No.3830/776/316 from Allah Rakha Hissadar- owner, as per aforesaid entries of field book, did not figure anywhere in the said sub-divisions and for that reason in the correction mutation he was shown to be the vendee of 2 'Kanals. 14 Marlas bearing Khasra No.774/316/11 from Allah Rakha Hissadar-owner and there was nothing unusual in it as the original Khasra No.3830/776/316 appeared to have been incorrectly mentioned as the ownership of respondent No.2 by purchase.
8. An important aspect of the matter that has come on the record is that Abdul Rashid respondent No.1 does not figure at all anywhere in any capacity in the aforesaid Revenue Record, which covers the entire original Khasra No.316-min and its three main sub-divisions, namely, Khasra Nos.774/316, 775/316 and 777/316, and the question of the sale of Khasra No.774/316 measuring 3 Kanals 19 Marlas by him to the petitioner did not arise. It may be mentioned here that this Khasra No.774/316, as per the aforesaid Revenue Record brought on the record filed by the petitioner himself, stands split up into as many as 9 small portions of different sizes, each representing a separate sale transaction, and this fact altogether negates the claim of the petitioner, who; on account of the correction mutation, obviously with a mala fide intention of teasing his opponent (respondent No.2), wants to make a ground for. re-opening an already decided issue, with the assistance of his counsel, who, despite submitting an unconditional apology before my learned brother Mr. Justice Akhtar Hassan in response to a contempt notice, for repetitive frivolous litigation, does not desist from rendering him his unethical legal assistance.
9. Here I would like to point out that the main basis of the petitioner's claim is the so-called agreement to sell, dated 9-8-1986, allegedly executed by respondent No.1, which was never mentioned during the litigation on the rent side and apparently it seems to be a forged and fictitious document, its executant being non-existent. The other document was receipt, dated 10-1- 1975 executed by respondent No.1, acknowledging the receipt of Rs.10,000 out of the sale price of Rs.20,000 from the petitioner. This was relied upon in the litigation on the rent side and was found to be a false document. The falsity of these documents stands established from the above analysis of the Revenue entries as well which the petitioner himself has brought on the record.
10. There is no substance in the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well that the learned Civil Judge could not dismiss the suit or reject the plaint summarily while disposing of the stay application. Due to the marked increase in frivolous litigation being repeatedly brought before the same forums, without caring for the principle of res judicata, the Courts feel constrained to deal with this extraordinary situation in an effective manner and in order to nip the evil in the bud they have to bury the'vexatious matters like the petitioner's suit as soon as possible. The trial Court had, therefore, rightly non-suited the petitioner summarily and his appeal was correctly dismissed by the lower appellate Court on various valid grounds.
11, In view of the above, the civil revision is dismissed with costs. The petitioner and his counsel, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Chauhan, Advocate, are not desisting from indulging in frivolous repetitive litigations against respondent No.2 and, besides wasting the precious time of the Courts, they are undermining their authority brazenly. This trend is unfortunately gaining ground day by day and the stream of justice, which is being rapidly polluted, is likely to be chocked. Therefore, onerous duty has been cast on those charged with the difficult task of administering the justice to take some effective measures 'against the obstinate litigants and their lawyers. I, therefore, feel constrained to direct that in view of the law laid down in Bashir Ahmad v. Abdul Hameed and another 1984 SCM R 689, Abdul Hayee v. Sardar Muhammad and others 1984 SCM R 1149 and Jaliluddin v. M/s. Habib Bank Ltd. and others 1985 SCM R 1965 notices be issued to the petitioner and his counsel for 3-10- 1992 to show cause as to why, besides other legal action, they should not be proceeded against for the contempt of Court? Notice to the counsel shall be issued with reference to his earlier apology vide paras.. 3 and 4 of the order, dated 19-12-1988 passed in C.R. No.2098 of 1988, and to the petitioner with reference to his earlier. apology in the interim order, dated 8-2-1989, passed in Cr1.
Original No.2-C-89.