' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---The background of instant appeal by leave of this Court against judgment dated 26-8-1991 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dismissing appellants' Writ Petition No,300-R of 1980, is that the predecessor-in-interest of the private parties herein had been litigating amongst themselves for the transfer of a composite- property consisting of two shops on the ground floor and a residential premises above. This property bears No,P-147/5 Ward No,6, Bahawana Bazar, Faisalabad (old Lyallpur). One of the shops on the ground floor was in possession of Abdul Majeed/predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants as an old tenant. He, being a local, did not file any form for the transfer of the shop in his possession. The other shop, in which a Soda Water Factory was installed, was allotted to respondent No,2/Abdul Karim, who submitted C.S. Form for the same. The then Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the entire unit to the said respondent No,2/Abdul Karim and his two brothers namely Abdul Ghani and Abdul Hameed, now respondents Nos.3 and 4 respectively, latter of whom has expired and is represented by his heirs Umer Hameed adult and Usman Hameed minor through his brother Umer Hameed. Abdul Majeed, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, and one Fazal Muhammad (not a party), claiming themselves to be in possession of Chaubara, filed appeals against the transfer order dated 2-11-1959, respectively claiming auction of the shop and transfer of the Chaubara. Both the appeals were dismissed by a learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 5-3-1960. Two further revisions by the aforementioned individuals were taken before the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner contending that the transfer of a divisible property under the law has been made contrary to the instructions on the subject. These revisions were disposed of by the-then Settlement Commissioner through two separate orders. The revision filed by Abdul Majeed (now deceased) was disposed of as withdrawn and that of Fazal Muhammad was dismissed. During the interregnum, Permanent Transfer Deed was also issued in favour of the private respondents, on 29-11-1961.
2. The private respondents received notices from the-then Settlement Commissioner Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) to appear before him on 24-11-1973 in connection with a revision, statedly filed by the predecessor of the appellants. The private respondents successfully impugned the issuance of notices to them before the High Court through Writ Petition No,942-R of 1973 vide judgment dated 3-9-1973 and the impugned notices were quashed.
3. Appellant No,1, statedly, found out some papers left by his late father- Abdul Majeed indicating that another revision petition had been filed by the said deceased which was entrusted to the Settlement Commissioner exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner and disposed of by his order dated 3-5-1962 with the observations that the private respondents were entitled to retain only one of the shops but were sans any entitlement over the other shop and the Chaubara, which were used as independent units and the same, being divisible, should be disposed of through public auction. After having unearthed the order, dated 3-5-1962, the appellants sought review of order dated 3rd of September, 1974 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No,942-R of 1975. The main ground for review of the judgment dated 3-9-1974 was that as they were not aware of the order dated 3-5-1962, announced by Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha Division with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner at the time of the transfer of the entire property in favour of the other side, is liable to be reversed for the purposes of finalizing the matter in terms of the said order dated 3-5-1962. Review Petition No,11 of 1979 was dismissed by High Court in limine on 11-2-1979 with the following observations: "The main ground on the basis of which the writ petition was accepted, as mentioned at page 4 of the judgment in the writ petition, was that Abdul Majid, predecessor-in-interest of the applicants, was a local and had not submitted any form, whatsoever, for the transfer of the property in question. The question involved was whether Abdul Majid had filed any revision petition which was still pending adjudication. It was held that even if it was conceded for argument's sake that the revision petition filed by Abdul Majid was still pending the question would be whether the same was competent and whether Abdul Majid had any locus standi to agitate the matter against the transfer of the property in favour of the petitioners in the writ petition. It was admitted by the parties that Abdul Majid had not submitted any form for the transfer of the property."
' The appellants challenged the order dated 11-2-1979 before this Court through C.P. No,150 of 1979 which was dismissed on 12-8-1979. Penultimate paragraph of judgment dated 12-8-1979 reads thus: "In the review application before the High Court it was alleged by the petitioners that after the discovery of the order dated 3-5-1962 passed by Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, on 20-12-1978 they hastened to file the form for the transfer of the shop in possession of their predecessor as the available undisposed property to them. But in that connection the Settlement Commissioner (Urban) on 20-1-1979 has sent a letter expressing their regret that department was unable to help them even on the production of the order dated 3-5-1962 of the Settlement Commissioner as the case of this property has already been decided by the High Court and P.T.D. Issued to the transferees'. In this connection we have already commented upon the judgment dated 3-9-1978 passed by High Court, whereby the notices issued by the Settlement Commissioner to respondents Nos. 3 to 5 for appearance in the supposedly filed first revision by late Abdul Majid were quashed.
This judgment did not remotely took up the merits of the order dated 3-5-1962 passed by Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan. Indeed as we look at the entire case it was for the Settlement Authorities and neither by the High Court nor even by this Court to examine for themselves the scope and effect of the order dated 3-5-1962 passed by Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, if any, on the rights of the parties."
4. The afore-quoted observations in order dated 3-5-1962 in Revision Petition No,1666 of 1960 were made the basis for making an application by the appellants before the concerned quarters in the Settlement hierarchy, asserting that this Court had almost remanded the case to the Settlement Commissioner but their such application before respondent No,1 was dismissed on 2-1-1980.
5. Order dated 2-1-1980 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons)/ Settlement Commissioner /Administrator Residual Properties, Sargodha Division, Sargodha was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellants in Writ Petition No,300-R of 1980 which was dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore with, inter alia, the following observations: "Having given consideration to the controversy involved, I am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners has no force. There is no doubt that the policy of law of settlement was to accommodate as many persons as may be possible but the accommodation had to be made in accordance with law. The disputed property having been transferred to the respondents, which transfer had been upheld throughout up to this Court in the earlier Constitutional petition the scope and effect of the order of Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner exercising the powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner could be independently examined by the Deputy Administrator Residual Properties, Faisalabad, as observed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan which he did while rejecting the application forms of the petitioners vide order, dated 17-6-1979. The said order had been upheld by the Administrator, Residual Properties by rejecting the revision of the petitioners on 22-8-1979, yet the factum of this rejection of forms of the petitioners was not disclosed by the petitioners in the proceedings before this Court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan, which position disentitles them from claiming any relief from this Court.
' Be that as it may, it has been correctly held vide the impugned order of the Settlement Commissioner/Administrator Residual Properties, Sargodha Division, Sargodha that the Supreme Court of Pakistan had not remanded the case, but had only observed that the effect and scope of the order of Settlement Commissioner (Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan) could be examined by the Settlement hierarchy only. The Settlement hierarchy having again held the transfer in favour of the respondents to be valid for reasons aforereferred in the order, the said order passed by the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction in the proper exercise of its powers would not be open to question in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
' A part altogether from the above position, it is also worthy of notice that the petitioners having acquiesced in the transfer in favour of the respondents through a compromise and having attorned to the respondents as tenants for long periods and not only that having paid rent as tenants under the respondents stand precluded from claiming an interest adverse to the title of the respondents in the property in dispute. In fact this attitude of the petitioners shows that they have not come to this Court with clean hands and have withheld necessary facts from this Court which by itself is sufficient ground for disentitling them form claiming the discretionary relief from this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction' ."
6. Hence, the instant appeal with leave of this Court"... To examine whether any authority has determined the legality, efficacy and presence of order dated 3-5-1962 of the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner. If not, its effect on the proceedings concluded".
7. It appears that the case of the appellants revolves around the efficacy of order dated 3-5-1962 statedly passed by Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Sargodha Division with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner read with the observations of this Court in C.P. No,150 of 1979 and Civil Petition for review No,61 of 1979. To come into the arena meaningfully they have to establish that their application, if any, seeking transfer of the disputed shop under the provision of Settlement Scheme No,VIII (Reconstituted), is still pending disposal.
8. Mr. S.M. Masood, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this appeal, has vehemently contended that the predecessor of the appellants suffered an attack of paralysis and as his power of speech was impaired to the maximum, his son-appellant No,1 and others, were simply seeking the disposal of their application and in spite of the directions by this Court, on more than one occasions, the said result has not come about so far.
9. Mr. Ch. Hamid-ud-Din, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, has controverted the plea of the appellants in its entirety. According to him, the predecessor of the appellants was not an applicant for the transfer of the disputed property to him. The two appeals, preferred by Abdul Majid, predecessor-ininterest of the appellants and Fazal Muhammad, not an applicant against transfer order dated 23-11-1959, were dismissed by the learned Additional Settlement Commissioner on 5- 3-1960. Even further review-petition filed by aforesaid Fazal Muhammad was dismissed by the- then Settlement Commissioner . As regards the review petition of Abdul Majeed-deceased, it is contended that the same was disposed of as withdrawn in the light of a compromise having been arrived at between the parties to the effect that the appellants their predecessorin-title Abdul Majeed, will not be ejected from the disputed premises for the next 10 years. This happened on 1-6- 1960. It was next contended that after the dismissal of application dated 12-3-1970 of respondent- Iftikhar Ahmed (now deceased), on 23-6-1970, the Settlement Commissioner (Urban) West Pakistan, Lahore informed him/Iftekhar Ahmed son of Abdul Majeed that the Chief Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan, has been pleased to decide that "your request for taking up the case in suo motu revision in respect of Property No,147/5 Ward No,6, Lyallpur cannot be acceded to."
Their plea that any proceedings were pending before any authority is obviously not in order.
According to the learned counsel for the respondents, when his clients failed to obtain possession of the disputed property from the appellants in terms of compromise dated 20-3-1960, they filed an application seeking ejectment of the appellants from the disputed premises but again the matter was compromised before the Rent Controller on 26-4-1975 whereby a further period of three years was allowed them to vacate the premises i.e, up to 30th April, 1978, After the demise of their predecessor on 18-9-1973 and after the institution of the application for ejectment afore referred but before its disposal, the predecessor of the appellants died on 18-9-1973. Instead of vacating the premises by 30-4-1978, they/male heirs of the deceased resorted to a suit for declaration and Injunction on 29-4-1978, with a view to stalling their ejectment. The suit was ultimately dismissed on 21-6-1978. Within days of the dismissal of the above suit, the widow of deceased-Abdul Majeed filed another suit for the same purpose but even this suit was dismissed on 27-7-1978. The argument was that appellants are bent upon thwarting the lawful efforts of the respondents to 'possess' the disputed premises which stand lawfully transferred to them for the past more than four decades. He concluded his arguments by making a reference to Notification No,10266-Admn-Reh/61, dated Lahore the 20th December, 1961, S.R.O. 102(k)/62, dated Karachi the 9th January, 1962 and SRO No,F.(4)/60-AH(SEI), dated Karachi, the 16th December, 1961 issued by the Ministry of Rehabilitation and Works, to contend that order dated 3-5-1962 alleged to have been passed by Ch. Sultan Muhammad, Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha Division with powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, is a forged document and the same saw the light of the day only on 31-12-1978, when it was produced by the appellants before the High Court to seek review of judgment dated 3-9-1974 in Writ Petition No,942/R of 1973 through Review Application No,11 of 1979.
10. While exercising his right of reply the learned counsel for the appellants reiterated his earlier stand to the effect that the appellants were entitled to the decision on their Form under Settlement Scheme No, VIII (Reconstituted) and that they could not be non-suited on the strength of the earlier orders favouring the private-respondents herein.
11. There is no need for considering, in any detail, the plea raised by Mr. Hamid-ud-Din, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents, to the effect that order dated 3-5-1962 was a forgery as requisite powers had not been conferred on Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan. Suffice it to say that the effect of order dated 3-5-1962 was attended to by the Deputy Administrator, Residual Properties by rejecting the revision of the appellants on 22-8-1979. Even the learned Judge in Chambers took notice of the orders dated 17-6-1979 and 22-8-1979 in the judgment in appeal and correctly observed that rejection . Of forms of the appellants was not disclosed by them either in the High Court or even this Court.
12. We find that the order dated 2-1-1980 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons)/Settlement Commissioner/Administraor, Residual Properties, Sargodha Division, Sargodha was upheld by the High Court in its judgment dated 26-8-1991, in appeal here, with the further observation that it was correctly held by the Administrator, Residual Properties, Sargodha Division, Sargodha that this Court had not remanded that case but had only observed that the effect and scope of the order of Settlement Commissioner (Ch. Sultan Muhammad Khan) could be examined by the Settlement hierarchy only which was done accordingly by the Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction in the proper exercise of its powers.
13. We further find that yet another reason was advanced by the learned Judge in Chambers while declining to grant relief to the appellant. It was observed that they had acquiesced in the transfer in favour of respondents through (i) a compromise; (ii) having attorned to the respondents for a long period and (iii) that they had not come to the Court, with clean hands. The aforereferred facets of the cause have not, even so much as, controverted in the arguments by the learned counsel for the appellants.
14. No other point was urged in support of the appeal.
15. For all that has gone before, the instant appeal is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed with no order as to costs. So be it.