1. ' At the outset, it is apt to observe that the judgment in Civil Revision No,508-D of 1992 by this Court on 2-5-1992 and that of the Honourable Supreme Court affirming it on June 7, 1993 were insuperable hurdles for the petitioner to cross over. Nonetheless, a succinct reference to the facts of the case was necessary.
2. ' Mst. Sher Kharum owned 286 Kanals, 9 Marlas of land in Village Bchal Dagger of Tehsil and District Bhakkar. By a deed registered on 6-5-1970, one Zafar Ali Khan assumed the role of a general attorney on her behalf. By a deed registered on 24-5-1980, he sold her 100 Kanals of land in the village to Allah Bakhsh petitioner. Sale-deed was implemented in Revenue Records by attestation of Mutation No,29, on 18-2-1981. On the same day, pretended attorney sold 186 Kanals, 1 Marla of her land in favour of Sardar Ali Khan, who further transferred it to Sher Samand Khan through a Court decree. Mst. Sher Khanum filed a civil suit for cancellation of the deed of general power of attorney and rescission of the sales of her lands oh its basis. The vendees from the general attorney contested the suit on merits. On 24-6-1989, the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit. In appeal, its decision was reversed on 18-2-1992 by Additional District Judge, Bhakkar who gave decree for the land in dispute to the plaintiff Mst. Sher Khanum. Sher Samand Khan preferred a separate revision petition in this Court. It was registered as Civil Revision No,508-D of 1992. It was dismissed in limine by the High Court on 2-5-1992 by affirming the judgment of the lower appellate Court. A petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed in the Supreme Court failed on 7th June, 1993. It was held in the High Court and its decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court that the registered power of attorney in favour of Zafar Ali Khan was a fake and fabricated document. Therefore, it had no legal sanctity for protection of sales of the land on its basis. Plea of bona fide transferee for value set up by Sher Samand Khan was specifically turned down in the High Court. Petitioner who had lost the land purchased by him preferred a separate Civil Revision No,496 of 1992. It came up before a Bench of this Court on 14-4-1992, when it was informed that Sher Samand Khan who was respondent No,4 in the instant civil revision had also filed a revision petition against the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Thereupon, it was observed by the Bench that necessary particulars of the aforesaid civil revision shall be supplied to the office and the office will place the file of that revision petition also with the file of Civil Revision No,496 of 1992. However, it could not happen and both the civil revisions emerging from a common judgment were heard separately. Civil Revision No,508-D of 1992 was dismissed in limine, but the connected Civil Revision No,496 of 1992 awaited a separate decision. It was listed on 8-11-1992 before a Bench of this Court, when it was, apprised of the decision of the High Court in the connected civil revision and pendency of a petition for leave to the appeal from the judgment given in it. Eventually, the Bench was-intimated that even the petition for leave to appeal had been dismissed by the Supreme Court. In this background, present civil revision was heard in limine. Petitioner was a respondent in Civil Revision No,508-D of 1992. Since it was dismissed in limine, he had no chance to be heaid. In petition for special leave to appeal filed in the Supreme' Court, he was shown as respondent No,4. There too he did not join the hearing, though he had chance for it. In the connected civil revision, there were categorical findings in the judgment of the High Court and the Supreme Court that the general power of attorney executed in favour of Zafar Ali Khan was a forged document and the sales of the land made on its basis could not be sanctified. On the same record, a different finding on the deed of power of attorney was not possible. On dismissal of petition for special leave to appeal, judgment of the High Court attained finality. It was not a permissible course in law to remove substrata from the final judgments of the High Court as well as the Supreme Court for disturbing their clear finality, learned counsel also found it difficult to contend for a different course. Therefore, I shall take the findings recorded in Civil Revision No,508-D of 1992 as correct. Even otherwise, on the existing records, I shall whole- heartedly agree with my learned brother who elaborately 4 discussed the evidence produced by the parties in the case and gave clear' findings on the ungenuineness of the deed of power of attorney in favour of Zafar Ali Khan and his incapacity to sell the land belonging to Mst. Sher Khanum. Furthermore, the petitioner could not be found a bona fide transferee of the land in dispute. The owner was not a privy to the fraud committed by Zafar Ali Khan, There were indications on record that the local Patwari was a close relation of the petitioner and the sale of the land in favour of the petitioner was collusively manoeuvred. Principle of law enacted in section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was inapplicable. On the basis of forged power of attorney, the petitioner could not be allowed to claim a valid title to the land in dispute. The case is covered by section 235 of the Contract Act, 1872 which gave no support to the petitioner. In Ganpat Prasad and another v. Sarju ILR 34 Allahabad Series page 168 on construction of section 235 of the Contract Act, 1872, a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court took this view, It seems to us clear that section 235 was intended to apply to both classes of cases. There is no distinction in principle between the case of a man who represents that he has authority from another when he has no authority whatever, and the case of a man who represents that he has certain authority from another when he has authority of another description. In neither case can the man who makes the representation be said to be the authorised agent of the other with reference to the matter on which he has no authority". The pretended authority having been found fraudulent and nonexistent, the sale of the land made on it was null and void.
3. ' In view of the aforesaid, civil revision is devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine.