ABDUL MAJID TIWANA, J.---Manzoor Ahmad petitioner has made this application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure against Nazir Ahmad and his three brothers (respondents Nos.l to 4) besides Mr. Ghulam .Muhammad Malik, Civil Judge, Gujrat (respondent No.5), seeking quashment of civil suit titled "Nazir Ahmad etc. v. Manzoor Ahmad etc." filed by respondents Nos.l to 4 against him (petitioner) and pending in the Court of respondent No.5.
2. The allegations in the /application, which is termed as ' quashment petition', are that the petitioner herein had purchased a piece of agricultural land, measuring 21 Kanals, in the area of Village Gurali, Tehsil and District Gujrat, from Syed Sharif and his brother. To pre-empt its sale, Rehmat Khan; the father of respondents Nos. l to 4, had brought two sets of pre-emption suits, one set comprising two suits pertaining 8 out of 21 Kanals and the other set comprising four suits relating to the remaining 13 Kanals. The first-mentioned two suits were decreed on 9-12-1975 and Rehmat Khan pre-emptor was directed to deposit Rs.8,500 as pre-emption money in both the suits but he failed to comply with that order. He assailed both the decisions of the trial Court in two appeals before the District Court but there too he remained unsuccessful as the same were dismissed on 10-11-1976. He went in R-.S.As. before the High Court but the same were dismissed for non-prosecution on 11-11-1979 and his attempt to get them restored, proved futile. As a result, his suits, which were initially decreed, were ultimately dismissed on 20-12-1979 on account of non- deposit of pre-emption money.
3. As regards the second set of pre-emption suits comprising four such suits, two based on the ground of co-ownership and two on the basis of tenancy, they were originally filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge but due to a change in pre-emption law they all were transferred to the Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat. He dismissed all of them on 14-5-1986. Since by then Rehmat Khan had died his sons-respondents Nos. l to 4 herein, filed four appeals before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Gujranwala. He dismissed the same on 24-8-1986. They invoked the revisional powers of the Board of Revenue, which, rejecting the plea of tenancy, sent the cases to the Civil Court for decision on the ground of co-ownership. During the pendency of this set of pre- emption suits, appeals and revisions before the Revenue Courts, Rehmat Khan pre-emptor and, after his death, his sons-respondents Nos. l to 4 herein, went on filing suits and appeal in the Civil Courts as indicated at Serial Nos.28 to 31 of the list (Annex-I) prepared by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gujrat, under the orders of this Court (to be explained later). These four pre- emption suits, on return from the Board of Revenue, were dismissed by the Civil Court and respondents Nos.l to 4 filed appeals (mentioned at Serial No.32 to 35 of Annex-I) before the District Court which dismissed the same on 1-11-1992.
4. It may be mentioned here that Rehmat Khan and, after his death, his sons, respondents Nos. l to 4, besides the first round of litigation, as indicated at Serial Nos. l to 6, and 16 to 19 (Annex-1), went on filing different kinds of suits, appeals and revisions in respect of the disputed land against Manzoor Ahmad petitioner which are mentioned at Serial Nos.7 to 15 and 20 to 35 of Annex-I, irrespective of their repeated dismissal. Out of them, Civil Revision No. 1702 of 1988, arising out of the appeal mentioned at Serial No.15 of Annex-1, which in turn emanated from the dismissal of respondents' suit listed at Serial No. 14, was handled by this Bench, and vide judgment, dated 28-4- 1992, it was accepted, the appellate order directing remand was set aside and the order of the trial Court, dismissing the respondents' suit, was maintained. It is in this revision that the long chain of litigation between the parties, commencing some time in the middle of seventh decade, came to the notice of this Court and taking serious notice thereof made certain adverse observations about the conduct of respondents Nos. l to 4 and their lawyers for their indulging in reckless frivolous litigation, jeopardising even the efficacy of the present judicial system, and to check this unwholesome tendency, initiated some corrective measures. The following passage from the said judgment shall give some idea of the kind of litigation between the parties:-- "Then the respondents filed a suit for a declaration with consequential relief of perpetual injunction which was dismissed on 21-7-1983. Then they brought another suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed on 6-2-1984. Their third suit was dismissed on 29-9-1985. Their fourth suit was for declaration and-permanent injunction. It was dismissed on 11-7-1984. Their fifth suit was dismissed on 8-4-1986. Against the dismissal of this suit they filed Appeal No. 54-A of 1986 which was dismissed on 18-10-1986 by the District Judge, Gujrat. Their review application was dismissed on 6- 6-1987. Their sixth suit was dismissed on 4-11-1987. Against this dismissal they filed an appeal which resulted in the passing of the impugned order and aggrieved by it the petitioners have come up to this Court. "
5. In the concluding paragraph of the judgment, which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference, I, inter alia, asked the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gujrat, to prepare and submit the list of all the cases, appeals and. revisions instituted by the parties against each other:-- "The above resume indicates that the respondents, without caring for the principle of res judicata as embodied in section 11 of the C.P.C., are repeatedly bringing the suits against petitioner No. l in respect of the same subject-matter with a view to keep him involved in reckless litigation, I have yet to see a htigation so frivolous and vexatious besides mala fide. Some litigants, on account of their typical background, do indulge in frivolous and reckless litigation against their opponents but lawyers, who owe a duty for the fair administration of justice, are not supposed to play in the hands of such litigants and dance to their tune. In this case, I feel Constrained to say that the lawyers, who continue to draft plaints, file suits and appeals for the respondents, which they fully knew that the same were clearly barred by the principle of res judicata, have, while doing so, done a great deal in plouting the administration of justice. This is a professional mis--conduct. Thus, where the civil revisional is accepted with costs and the impugned order is set aside, I would direct the learned District Judge, Gujrat, to prepare a list of all the suits and appeals/revisions which have been filed by the respondents or their father against petitioner No.l in respect of the disputed property, as also the list of counsel who have been persuing these matters, and submit the same to this Bench through the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) within a month."
6. It is in view of the above directions that the learned District and Sessions Judge, Gujrat, has submitted the list of the cases, appeals and revisions and that of the lawyers filing them. This is Annex-I and is being referred to herein as such. Perhaps taking a cue from this order, the petitioner herein has brought this application under section 151, C.P.C. for the quashment of the suit titled "Nazir Ahmad etc. v. Manzoor Ahmad etc." pending in the Court of respondent No.5. It may be noted that despite adverse observations made in the said judgment, dated 28-4-1992, about the frivolity of respondents' litigation, they and their lawyer never bothered and brought this suit on 10-11-1992 and the learned Civil Judge continues to handle it.
7. 1 summoned the record of the suit as also respondents Nos. l to 4. The record was received but respondents Nos. l to 4 remained absent despite service. They were proceeded against ex parte.
Respondent No.5 (Civil Judge) was not summoned as he was pro forma and had not yet passed any effective order.
8. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. He submitted that Rehmat Khan, the father of respondents No. l to 4, had started litigation against the petitioner in respect of a piece of land about 21 Kanals in area and with a view to prolong their illegal possessions as lessees, they continued to repeatedly bring suits and other proceedings in different Courts despite the fact that they were non-suited in the very first round. He argued that despite disapproval expressed by this Court in the aforesaid civil revision about their obstinate conduct of initiating frivolous litigation, they have brought yet another suit in the Court of respondent No.5, challenging the validity of the ejectment and rent recovery proceedings taken by the Revenue Authorities, knowing fully well that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was barred, as the Revenue Courts were a separate hierarchy having exclusive jurisdiction in those matters, and the learned Civil Judge continued to take proceedings therein and the same are liable to be quashed under section 151, C.P.C. or under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
9. Perusal of the record of the suit, the aforesaid judgment of this Court, relevant passages whereof have even been reproduced, and the list of cases prepared by the learned District Judge, Gujrat, indicates that since 1975 till now respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and their father Rehmat Khan have filed 32 suits, appeals and revisions against the petitioner in various Courts in respect of the disputed piece of land. These are in addition to 12 suits, appeals end revisions filed by them before the Revenue authorities. They have also initiated some criminal litigation against him, one of such cases has been quashed by this Court. If about a dozen genuine suits, appeals/revisions of the first round of litigation be excluded, the respondents have vexed their opponent at least in 20 false and frivolous matters and the suit now sought to be quashed is an off-shoot of those series. One can imagine the plight of the petitioner, who at one stage during the pendency of the above said civil revision, had even started crying in the Court, perhaps very rightly, be-wailing on his helplessness and decrying the viability of the system. I gave him the relief he was held entitled to and expressed my views in somewhat wrong language about the conduct of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 in involving their opponent in reckless litigation, with the hope that they would desist in future from this perilous course but on return to Gujrat they brought yet another suit against him, challenging the ejectment proceedings and execution proceedings of the Revenue Authorities, and the learned Civil Judge, without applying his mind to the question of jurisdiction, is leisurely proceeding with the trial. Even the bare reading of the plaint would reveal that the question of jurisdiction was subtly involved but he never adverted to it or did not possess sufficient ability to understand it. If the respondents had any grievance against the order of Tehsildar, they could approach the higher forum on the revenue side but they came to the Civil Court, the kind of forum which is a heaven for the unscrupulous litigant, as they are, to entrap their opponents in a swamp from which they can never come out for generations. As it appears for the report of Girdawar available on the suit file, the petitioner had on 28-7-1992 obtained possession of the disputed land after about one-and-a-half decades of struggle and it gave him some edge over his adversaries who even now do not intend to spare him.
10. To request for quashment of the proceedings of the civil suit in exercise of Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 151, C.P.C. is a remedy not thereto well known to our sphere of justice but at the same time it is not something entirely beyond the reach of deserving and troubled litigants like the petitioner. In similar matter (Criminal Original 38-C/92) I have quite recently, after comparing the provisions of section 561-A, Cr.P.C., under which criminal proceedings in the subordinate Courts are quashed in appropriate cases, with those of section 151, C.P.C. quashed proceedings in a frivolous pending civil appeal and would like to make use of these provisions in the instant case as well. Section 151, C.P.C. is meant to check the abuse of the process of the Court and, in my opinion, there can be no better instance of the abuse of the process of the Court than the pending suit of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 against the petitioner and others titled "Nazir Ahmad etc. v. Manzoor Ahmad etc." in the Court of respondent No. 5.
11. In view of the above, exercising my powers under section 151, C.P.C., I hereby quash all the proceedings so far taken by respondent No. 5 in the abovementioned suit. As a result, it becomes non-existent.
12. Since respondents Nos. 1 to 4 are not desisting from vexing the petitioner again and again, if so advised, he may prosecute them under section 209, P.P.C. for fraudulently or dishonestly making a false claim, or under section 193, P.P.C. for falsely verifying the plaint.
13. Ordinarily respondents Nos. 1 to 4 would not have persisted in their frivolous and vexatious litigation against the petitioner, if their counsel had not advised them. This malpractice of false and frivolous litigation, which has defamed and eroded the entire system of administration of justice, therefore, cannot be curbed unless a section of lawyers, which encourages it, is taken to task. From the list (Annex-I) prepared by the learned District Judge, Gujrat, it appears that Haji Nazar Muhammad, Muhammad Munir Gondal, Khan Alim c Ullah Khan and Syed Yasoob-ul-Hasan, Advocates at Gujrat, were instrumental in fostering fake, frivolous and vexatious litigation against the petitioner, by providing legal assistance to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 at different occasions and apparently they all seem to be guilty of professional misconduct, besides liable to prosecution under the provisions of law mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this judgment as abetters of their clients, but I would leave the question of their prosecution to the petitioner and would confine myself only to the initiation of disciplinary action. The Office shall, therefore, send a copy of this judgment alongwith the copy of Annex-I to the Chairman, Punjab Bar Council for taking action against them for professional misconduct.