' This revision petition arises out of the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Mardan, dated 16-1-1993 whereby a decree in Case No,162/1, dated 5-12-1993 passed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and against the respondents-defendants were set aside and Original Suit No,162/1 was restored.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Haji Abdul Ghafoor petitioner-plaintiff filed his suit in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mardan, against his three sons, namely, Abdul Qayyum, Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil and his daughter-in-law Mst. Musarrat Jabeen wife of Abdul Qayyum for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of land measuring 45 Kanals 8 Mamas out of Khasra numbers as mentioned in the plaint situated in Chak Mardan and that gift Mutation No,4371, dated 11-2-1974 attested on his behalf in favour of his three sons mentioned above that subsequent Mutation No,4733, dated 25-11-1975 of land measuring 10 Kanals 8 Marlas 3 Sersais on behalf of respondents-defendants Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil in favour of respondent Abdul Qayyum and Mutation No,4734 attested on 19-10-1976 executed by Abdul Qayyum in favour of his wife Mst.
Musarrat Jabeen respondent-defendant No,4 were illegal, wrong, based on fraud and collusion and ineffective on the rights of the petitioner-plaintiff. Notices were accordingly issued to the respondents-defendants. On the next day of hearing Abdul Qayyum respondent-defendant No,1 appeared and submitted his written statement on his behalf and also on behalf of his brothers, respondents Nos.2 and 3 Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil, and his wife respondent No,4 Mst.
Musarrat Jabeen. The pleadings of the parties were reduced to the relevant issues. However, on 5- 12-1993 a compromise deed was presented to the Court signed by Abdul Qayyum respondent on his behalf and also on behalf of remaining respondents-defendants as their attorney. On the said date all respondents-defendants also appeared. Mst. Musrarrat Jebeen, defendant No,4, was identified by her brother Muhammad Saleem in the Court. Joint statement of all the respondents was recorded by the Court. On the basis of the said statement the Court vide order, dated 5-12- 1993 passed a consent decree as prayed for in favour of Haji Abdul Ghafoor plaintiff-petitioner and against the respondents-defendants.
3. It was on 3-1-1994 when letter from one Akram Khan was received by Senior Civil Judge, Mardan, informing the Court that a fraudulent decree had been obtained by Haji Abdul Ghafoor. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mardan, invoking his inherent powers der section 151, C.P.C. Issued notices to the parties whereof respondent No,Mksarrat Jabeen alongwith her counsel Pir Mukammil Shah appeared before the Court, so did Haji Abdul Ghafoor petitioner-plaintiff and his son Abdul Haleem respondent-defendant No,2. Whereas defendant-respondent Abdul Qayyum was declared ex parte as he was reported to be out of country. Mst. Musarrat Jabeen respondent-defendant denied to have executed any compromise deed in favour of her father-in-law Haji Abdul Ghafoor.
She also moved an application under section 12(2) read with sections 151, 114 and 35-A, C.P.C., Order 47 Rule 1 and Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. For setting aside the said decree.
4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Mardan consolidated both the suits, i,e, under section 151, C.P.C.
And 12(2), C.P.C. And after recording necessary evidence passed the impugned order whereby he set aside the decree, dated 5-12-1993 and restored the original Suit No,162/1. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge the plaintiff-petitioner has come up to this Court with the present revision petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the order under section 151, C.P.C. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally devoid of force. It has been held in number of cases that if a fraud has been practised on the Court, the Court can under inherent jurisdiction, set aside the order based on such fraud. Reliance can be made to PLD 1975 SC 331.
6. The learned counsel further argued that the compromise deed entered into between the parties was not forged but in fact it was duly signed by respondent Abdul Qayyum and his wife Mst.
Musarrat Jabeen who had personally appeared before the Court where Mst. Musarrat Jebeen was identified by her brother Muhammad Saleem.
7. Mst. Musarrat Jabeen while appearing in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mardan, has recorded her statement on oath wherein she alleged that her signatures on the back of compromise deed dated 5-12-1993 were forged. She also denied that her brother Muhammad Saleem and her husband Abdul Qayyum had ever appeared in the Court and signed the said compromise deed.
She further alleged that her brother Muhammad Saleem a Captain in Pakistan Army was on duty at Abbottabad while her husband Abdul Qayyum was in Saudi Arabia during those days. To substantiate her statement she produced letter written by her husband Abdul Qayyum to her son Raheel on his Hostel address. She further denied to have executed any power of attorney in favour of Abdul Qayyum, her husband. She stated that her father Haji Wall Muhammad Khan was her general attorney and her brother Muhammad Tariq who is practising lawyer was special attorney in her previous litigation with her father-in-law Abdul Ghafoor and brothers-in-law Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil. She also refused to have received any summons from the Court in Case No,162/1 and that her signature on the s mon was also forged. Similarly she also denied the signatures of her husbaiWbdul Qayyum on summons in Case No, 162/1. Muhammad Saleem whose presence was marked as identifier of her sister Mst. Musarrat Jabeen also appeared before the Court and denied his signature as well as N.I.C.. Number. He produced his original N.I.C.. Before the Court, copy of which is placed on file, and alleged that on the said date he was on duty at Abbottabad. Mst.
Musarrat Jabeen has also given the background of her strained relations with her father-in-law, Haji Abdul Ghafoor and brothers-in-law Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil. She stated that in lieu of her dower her husband Abdul Qayyum alienated land measuring 50 Kanals 15 Marlas in her favour on basis of Mutation No,4735 attested on 19-10-1976. Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil respondents challenged the validity and correctness of the said mutation as well as Mutation No,4735, dated 25-11-1975 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Mut dim, by filing Suit No, 342/1 on 6-10-1986 for a declaration and permanent injunction wherein petitioner-plaintiff Abdul Ghafoor had appeared as witness of his sons respondents Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil. The said suit was dismissed and Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil respondents faced defeat in all forums up to the Supreme Court.
However, in Supreme Court of Pakistan Mst. Musarrat Jabeen gave up 10 kanals of land out of her suit land and thus compromise deed was executed between the parties and a decree of 10 Kanals out of her land was passed in favour of respondents, Abdul Haleem and Abdul Jamil, and against Mst. Musarrat Jabeen and Abdul Qayyum, respondents.
8. Looking at the facts chronologically it can easily be presumed that no person can hand over her property so easily after long litigation and even specially winning the case at the highest forum, i,e, Supreme Court of Pakistan unless it was done due to some fear or by committing a foul play. There is no doubt in my mind that Mst. Musarrat Jabeen and her brother Muhammad Saleem were never produced in the Court. The signatures and N.I. Card numbers of the said two persons are not alike and different to the extent that proper formation of 11 numerical is not even maintained. Mst.
Musarrat Jabeen even if desired could have produced his brother Muhammad Tariq who is a member of the Mardan Bar and also remained her attorney in the previous litigation with the petitioner-plaintiff instead of her brother Muhammad Saleem who was posted miles away from Mardan. Presence of Abdul Qayyum husband of Mst. Musarrat Jabeen is also not proved and his absence abroad justified in view of the letter written by him to his son and produced by Mst.
Musarrat Jabeen. It is a matter of great shame that such low down tactics are used by a person (Haji Abdul Ghafoor) who holds such an honourable distinction amongst relations and would stoop so low as to commit forgery of such a high degree. Not only it is against cultural norm of any civilized society but also making a mockery of our judicial system. One may expect such hoodlumism in medieval period only. It is the sign of a sick and evil mind which needs immediate treatment by specialist.
' In view of the above the ikon petition is dismissed in limine.