' Sale of a house effected on 18-1-1975, by means of a registered-deed, was sued out on 21-6-19'75 to be pre-empted by the revision petitioners with the claim that they are owners of the house adjoining on the western side, having a common wall therewith. Suit was duly tried and by upholding the superior right of the plaintiffs on the ground of contiguity, trial Court decreed their suit on 25-3-1981.
2. There against appeal of the vendee was, however, accepted by an Additional District Judge vide his judgment dated 23-1-1984 with his conclusion reached on the basis of his site-inspection that a portion of three rooms of the adjoining house, which formed the foundation of the claim of the pre- emptors, had in fact been sold out to another person, Abdul Aziz.
3. Revision Petition No,769/D of 1984 filed by the plaintiffs in this Court was accepted by me on 13-9- 1988 on the basis of finding reached for the stated reasons that the plaintiffs continued to have superior right of pre-emption on account of contiguity, regardless of the sale because there had not been made any partition by metes and bounds to carve out another house in between.
Appellate decree was consequently set aside and that of the trial Court was restored.
4. Vendee Hassan Raza then approached the Supreme Court in C.P.L.A. No,1066 of 1988 which was dismissed on 18-6-1990 and judgment rendered by this Court on 13-9-1988 was affirmed.
5. Thereafter, vendee maintained this petition under consideration on 3-11-1991 under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. For the judgment dated 13-9-1988 being set aside for the reason as he has put it that:- - "..................The revision-petitioners managed to get entered incorrect and wrong description of suit property in the sale-deed in collusion with the vendors and the revision petitioners/pre-emptors were shown to be the owner of property adjacent to the property in dispute although on the spot the situation was quite different and their property was not adjacent to the suit property."
6. Learned counsel, who himself represented the vendee-applicant in the Supreme Court, has elaborated that description of the house in suit has since been got rectified through a registered document dated 9-7-1990, in result whereof description of the suit-house in the sale-deed has come to be read as `bounded on the western side by the house of Abdul Aziz', instead of that of Nabi Bakhsh Kashmiri. This is a self-serving document created by the vendee almost a month after the said judgment of this Court had been upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs were not parties to it and, hence, I cannot conceive as to how may they get bound thereby? Description of the house in the original sale-deed happened to merely be one of the pieces of evidence used for reaching a conclusion about contiguity on a number of factors, therefore, firstly, the finding reached thereabout is not liable to be reversed on the basis of this new document, the product of a visible afterthought, which cannot bind the plaintiffs and is not eligible for even being looked into at this stage and, secondly, if at all, it may be brought on the record by way of further evidence either upon review of the judgments already passed or, if it may at all be possible, by way of additional evidence but neither of these courses is open now and, as it is, this fresh document is by itself only a purposeless enterprise which cannot in any way advance the case of the vendee. Muchless may it become the basis of proceeding under section 12(2) of the C.P.C., the contemplation whereof is wholly different.
7. This petition is absolutely frivolous and the devise adopted for supporting it is much too clumsy ingenious contrivance begotten after all the water has flowed under the bridge inasmuch as the order thus far taken cannot be reversed on its basis.
8. This application is completely devoid of substance and is accordingly rejected.
Application rejected.