' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, C.J.---Applicants before us in Cr.M.P.66/91 and deceased father of the applicant in Cr.M.P. 67/91 before us purchased the property in dispute in auction, which was set aside by the Rehabilitation Authorities; which action was challenged in the High Court by way of Writ Petitions Nos. 454-R/78 and 1438-R/77. First writ petition was allowed, whereas the second writ petition was dismissed. Respondent Qazi Abbas Hussain Shah filed petition for leave to appeal in this Court, which was granted and the petition was converted into Civil Appeal No,189 of 1980, which was dismissed and the order of the High Court maintaining validity of the auction was upheld. However, Sufi Muhammad Din, deceased father of the applicant before us in Cr.M.P. 67/91, filed Civil Petition No,60-R of 1980 which was granted and converted into CA. No, 75/80 and allowed by setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the auction in favour of Sufi Muhammad Din. Two civil review petitions were filed in this Court by respondent Qazi Abbas Hussain Shah, which were also dismissed on 24th February, 1991. In such circumstances, the judicial proceedings attained finality.
2. Respondent Qazi Abbas Hussain Shah filed three separate suits in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jhelum for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the land challenging validity of the auction on the ground that fake documents were produced by forgery and fraud.
Alongwith the plaints, applications for stay were filed on 27th March, 1991 and by order, dated 28th March, 1991 civil suits were registered and status quo was granted till the next date of hearing. On 2nd June, 1991, two applications were addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court alleging contempt on the ground that in spite of the judgment of this Court, fresh proceedings have been initiated and order of status quo has been passed by the Senior Civil Judge Jhelum in violation of the judgment of this Court.
3. Copies of the plaints were also attached and in paragraph 6 of the plaint filed against Abdul Majid and in paragraph 7 of the plaint filed against L.Rs, of Sufi Muhammad Din, it is clearly mentioned that there was adjudication from this Court on the subject-matter of litigation arising from the writ petitions, which were disposed of by the High Court as mentioned above. Such orders have been obtained through misrepresentation, hence are void in IB the eyes of law. Notice was issued to Malik Muhammad Afzal Khan, Advocate District Jhelum, initiating contempt proceedings as contemplated under Order XXVII, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, who filed reply wherein he assumed full responsibility on the ground that on account of mistaken view he had filed the suits which he had immediately withdrawn. Since responsibility was assumed by the Advocate, notices were issued to him, Senior Civil Judge, and parties to the suits. Charge-sheets were framed in this Court against Shabbir Hussain Chatha, Senior Civil Judge, and Malik Muhammad Afzal Khan, Advocate. Both of them filed unconditional and unqualified apologies in writing and threw themselves at the mercy of the Court.
4. Later on, the Advocate died, hence proceedings against the Senior Civil Judge continued. Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for the Senior Civil Judge has submitted that the Senior Civil Judge is repentant and admits that he granted status quo inadvertently and through mistake without being aware or reading of the relevant paragraphs of the plaints, in which there is mention of the fact that in the previous round of litigation the case had come up to the Supreme Court which had given decision of finality.
5. In support of the proposition advanced by him, he has relied upon a string of rulings of this Court on the subject and very heavily relied upon the case of Sher Muhammad v. Noor Elahi and another (1985 SCM R 1530), in which the facts and circumstances were almost identical. In the reported case, ejectment was granted by the Rent Controller, which was upheld in appeal and no interference was made in the writ petition, which was dismissed. Petition filed in this Court was also dismissed and further by consent of the parties tenant was allowed to retain possession of the shops up to a certain date. Notwithstanding such order of this Court, executing Court took possession of the shops by breaking open the locks before the due date. Senior Civil Judge admitted that he could not have passed the order which he had passed in spite of the order of this Court and pleaded that mistake was committed by him bona fidely and offered unqualified apology for his mistake. This Court in the contempt proceedings took lenient view in favour of the judicial officer who had admitted that order passed by him was not legally possible and that he had committed a serious mistake and further there was unqualified apology tendered by him.
6. A new trend is noticed that after conclusion of proceedings in this Court, aggrieved party either directly or through someone else starts fresh round of litigation on the same subject-matter with the intention of defeating the final adjudication by this Court which is disapproved and is to be discouraged with maximum emphasis. It is held by this Court that resort to civil litigation on questions already concluded in the previous round of litigation giving rise to fresh frivolous and vexatious litigation is not to be permitted to go unnoticed. Reference can be made to the case of Muhammad Shafi and another v. Attaullah and others (1984 SCM R 1124).
7. Article 189 of the Constitution envisages in unequivocal terms that decision of the Supreme Court deciding a question of law is binding upon all. Other Courts in Pakistan. This Court takes very serious view if the judgment of this Court is not implemented or its implementation is delayed by contrivance of frivolous litigation. In support, of the proposition reference can be made to the case of Ashiq Hussain alias Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (PLD 1994 SC 879).
8. Raja Muhammad Anwar, counsel appearing for the Senior Civil Judge, has submitted before us firstly that a mistake has been committed by the Senior Civil Judge, who has repented enormously and has tendered unqualified apology in writing at the earliest possible opportunity and has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court. It was so done due to the rush of work as contents of the plaints were not perused by him; nor was it pointed out to him by the counsel, who has expired.
Secondly, that in the applications which were addressed to the Chief Justice, alleging facts leading to the violation of the order of this Court and contempt, no specific allegation had been made against the Senior Civil Judge that he was mixed up with the parties and had passed that order with prior knowledge of the judgment of finality passed by this Court. Thirdly, that the Senior Civil Judge has put in more than seventeen years in judicial career and has earned good reputation and unspoiled record and has not earned even a single adverse annual confidential report.
Fourthly, that the Senior Civil Judge has suffered continuously mental anguish for more than four years as the contempt proceedings initiated in the year 1991 are continuing up to now.
9. Under the order, officer of this Court has found out on telephone from the Registrar of Lahore High Court, who after checking the record has informed that ACRs of the Senior Civil Judge are good and he is an honest and efficient judicial officer, who otherwise commands respect among the public and is polite, humble and unassuming.
10. We have to keep balance between anxiety of this Court to curb and discourage the trend of second round of frivolous litigation to flout the finally concluded adjudications of the Superior Courts and peculiar circumstances of each case to find out whether mistake is made with mala fide intention or is innocuous and inadvertent mistake. This Court expects the presiding officers to perform their duties with their eyes and ears open as required under the law and pass orders after judicial application of mind and not in perfunctory and slip-shod manner allowing room for mistakes because these mistakes whether they are inadvertent or not reflect upon the conduct of the Judge and can be considered as a minus point. We disapprove and deprecate such conduct of the presiding officers and it should be discouraged in true sense as far as possible. Raja Muhammad Anwar, learned counsel for the Senior Civil Judge, has pleaded this case to show us that there are mitigating circumstances in it not to justify stern action as the Senior Civil Judge has regretted his mistake and suffered mental anguish and has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court. In such circumstances and particularly in view of his record as reported by the Registrar of the High Court, as an exceptional case, we take lenient view in this matter and discharge the notice of contempt against the Senior Civil Judge with a warning that he should be careful in future. We direct that this warning should not be treated as an impediment in the way of this Senior Civil Judge at the time of his next promotion, whenever due.