It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Premier Cloth Mill was trifurcated by the Hon'ble High Court in C.O. 16/75 on 26-3-1976. The three newly formed companies were, M/s. A.B.M. Associates Ltd.-, M/s. Hudaibia Textile Mills Ltd. And the petitioners i.e. M/s. Zulfiqar Associates Ltd. The suit was filed for recovery by Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Which was registered in the High Court as C.O.S. 80/83 and decree was passed on 30-10-1984. The Court auctioneers started the proceedings of auction on 14-9-1985 and many objections were filed. The auction of immovable property falling to the share of Hudaibia Textile Mills was made on 15-9-1985 whereas the auction relating to the property falling to the share of the present petitioner took place on 21-9- 1985 and M/s. I.J.S. (Iqbal-Jamil-Saleem & Co.) were declared as highest bidders. The objections regarding the auction were filed in Court which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, were still pending adjudication. The auction proceedings relating to the property of M/s. Hudaibia Textile Mills had culminated in the judgment dated 12-8-1987 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited as M/s. Hudaibia Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. PLD 1987 SC 512 and a Sale Certificate was issued in the name of the highest bidders i.e. Rao Muhammad Suleman on 24-10- 1987.
2. Rao Muhammad Suleman filed W.P. No.599/92 for incorporation of his name in the revenue record which was accepted and Mutation No.47897 was allegedly attested by the respondent against the entries of sale certificate and it was prayed that respondents be proceeded against for committing gross contempt of this Court in reference to compliance of orders of this Court dated 25-1-1995 and that orders may also be passed that the compliance of the orders of this Court dated 25-1-1995 may be made.
3. I have gone through the contents of the petition wherein different contradictory pleas have been taken by the petitioners. On the one hand they contend that they were lessees for 99 years of the property in dispute and on the other hand while referring to the judgment in W.P.3323/81 they had contended that they were the owners of the land having paid the price thereof in regular acquisition proceedings.
4. The petitioners had filed Review Petition No. C. R. P. No.8-R/88 wherein they had sought the review of judgment of the Supreme Court dated 12-8-1987 passed in Civil Appeal No.90 of 1987. The said review as also C.R.P. 69-R-87 came up before the Supreme Court on 12-2-1990 and the matter was referred "to be heard by a larger Bench in which the Author Judge should be included". This order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 21-2-1990 and finally both the review petitions were heard and dismissed on 3-4-1990 by Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of Mr. Justice Shafiur Rahman, Mr. Justice Zafar Hussain Mirza and Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian. After the decision in Appeal 90/87 the auction-purchasers were put in possession of the land by the bailiff of the Court in the presence of the Magistrate, Revenue Officer, Patwari Circle and the Local Police and report in Roznamcha to that effect was incorporated in the revenue record. Rana Abdul Rahim Khan the learned counsel for Rao Suleman has referred to the entries in Ro7namcha Waqiati and I agree with him that the factum of possession of respondent No .l over the land was in the knowledge of the present petitioners when they filed review petition. This plea was also available to the petitioners in C.R.P. 8-R-88. If the plea was not taken by them in the said petition they are estopped to take it in the present petition at this belated stage and if the plea was taken and contested in that - case too, the petitioner has no case for taking action against the respondent for committing contempt of this Court while giving effect to the orders passed in W.P. No.9599/92 which was decided by this Court on 25-1-1995 and vide said order the respondents in the writ petition were directed to give effect to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.90/87 in view of Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The judgment in W.P. No.9599/92 was appealed against by the Government of Punjab and the same was refused by their lordships in the Supreme Court. The land mentioned in the mutation was the same of which the possession was delivered to the writ petitioner and as such, I do not feel that the petitioner has any cause to challenge the same at present. Possession having been delivered in December, 1987 and the petitioners having not filed any objection petition thereagainst, it had attained finality not only by aflux of time but also by operation of law.
5. This petition is frivolous and does not require any further proceedings. The same is dismissed.