We intend to decide following C.M. Applications by one consolidated order having similar facts and law:-- C.M. 200-C-2001 This is an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. For recalling the judgment and decree dated 3-10-1997 passed in Civil Revision No.348/1983 by the then Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Qazmi, J.
C.M. 2-C-2001 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
While C.M. 3-C-2001 is an application for granting status quo order with regard to possession of the applicant.
2. The brief facts out of which these applications arise are that late Wali Muhammad filed Civil Revision No.348-B/1983 before this Court against Sardar Muhammad and Kala which was finally decided by the then our brother Syed Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, J. On 23-10-1997. Since Wali Muhammad and Sardar Muhammad had already been died therefore, legal heirs of Sardar Muhammad have filed these applications against Kala and legal heirs of Wali Muhammad presently respondents Nos.2' to 7. An agreement to sell was executed by Kala (presently respondent No. 1) in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner Sardar Muhammad on 30-4-1973 for sale of agricultural land measuring 82 Kanals 13 Marlas for consideration of Rs.26,500. Out of which Rs.4,000 were paid in advance and the balance amount was to be paid at the time of execution on 14-11-1973. The time for execution of the sale deed was extended by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondent No.1 till 30th August, 1976. Respondent No.1 had sold the land in question to predecessor-in-interest of present respondents Nos.2, to 7 for consideration of Rs.26,500. Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against respondent No.1 and predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 7. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed a written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint and took a stand that present respondent No.1 had sold the land in question to him vide agreement to sell dated 20-4-1973. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the agreement to sell in favour of predecessor-in-interest of present respondents No.2 to 7 was prior date. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner being aggrieved filed appeal before the District Judge who accepted the same vide judgment and decree dated 14-7-1982. The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed C.R. No.348/1983 which was accepted by the impugned judgment and decree dated 23-10-1997 on the ground that the agreement to sell produced by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 was prior in time. The petitioner being aggrieved filed petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the leave was refused by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present petitioner has filed this application for setting aside the decree dated 23-10-1997 obtained by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents Nos.2 to 7 by practising fraud and misrepresentation. The document of agreement to sell of which predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 7 had got the decree in his favour to show that the same was executed on 20-4-1993 whereas the agreement to sell by respondent No. 1 was executed in favour of predecessor---in-interest of the petitioner on 30-4-1973. The particulars noted back side of the stamp paper on which agreement to sell was executed by respondent No. 1 in favour of ,predecessor-in-interest o respondents Nos.2 to 7 are that Kala son of Nizam Din purchased a stamp paper valuing Rs.4 on 20-4-1973 from Zafar A.I Stamp Vendor Zila Kachary Lyallpur which is entered at Sr. No.11282. The petitioner has probed into the record of the stamp vendor preserved in Record Room of District Courts, Faisalabad. It has now come to light that no stamp paper valuing Rs.4 was purchased on 20-4,1973 by Kala son of Nizam from aforesaid stamp vendor.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that certified copies of the stamp vendor reveals that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner obtained a decree from this Court by fraud and mis- representation, therefore, impugned decree be recalled. In support of his contention he relied upon 1993 SCM R 710 Lal Din and others v. Muhammad Ibrahim. The petitioner has also filed C.M. No.2-C- 2001 for condonation of delay and took the following stand in para 4 for condonation of delay for filing application under section 12(2) C.P.C.
"That it is only a couple of days before that the petitioners learnt about the above said real facts and without loss of time they have applied for the certified copies of the documents and immediately thereafter have filed the application under section 12(2), C.P.C.
The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that it is sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
4. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel of the petitioner and perused the record ourselves. It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
(1) Predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners filed suit for specific performance before the Senior Civil Judge Faisalabad on 9-9-1976.
(2) The predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed a written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint, and took a stand that land in question was sold by respondent No. 1 in his favour for Rs.26,500 and executed sale deed in his favour on 1-9-1976.
(3) Suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge First Class vide judgment and decree dated 11-2-1980.
(4) Predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner filed appeal before the District Judge, who accepted the same vide judgment and decree dated 14-7-1982. Predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos.2 to 7 filed C.R. No.348/1983 which was accepted by this Court vide judgment and decree dated 23-7-1997. The petitioner being aggrieved filed petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was also dismissed.
It is pertinent to mention here that our brother Syed Najam-ul---Hassan Kazmi, J in the impugned order in para 13 observed as under:-- "As a mater of fact, there was no reason for disputing the execution of document or making inquiry into the question of its execution, m view of the position taken by the parties in the pleadings.
Reference can be made to paragraph No.4 of the plaint wherein respondent No. 1 had not said a single word against the agreement of sale and his only plea was that a sale deed had been executed-by respondent No. 2 which was fictitious or without consideration. "
It is admitted fact that petitioner did not obtain certified copies of the register of the stamp vendor till the matter had been finally decided by apex Court of this Country. It is also admitted fact that civil revision was finally decided by this Court on 23-10-1997 and the application under section 12(2)
C.P.C. Is filed by the present petitioner on 25-4-2001. It is settled proposition of law that application under section 12(2) C.P.C. Has to be filed within three years but the petitioner has filed this application after three years i.e. Petitioner has filed C.M.2-C-2001 for condonation of delay. The petitioner did not mention a single word in his application for condonation of delay when the petitioner had knowledge qua the aforesaid entry as is evident from para 4 of the application which has already been reproduced above. It is for us to determine whether the aforesaid paragraph provides sufficient cause or ground for extension of time or not. A sufficient cause can properly be said to be a cause which is beyond control of the party invoking aid of section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908. Sufficient cause should receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. Yet it must be determined by a reference to the circumstances of the particular cause. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the view taken in Krishma's case 13 Madras 269, and A.I.R. 1937 Oudh 436 (Girdhari Lal's case). The petitioner did not mention date of knowledge in C.M. 2 for condonation of delay. This fact brings the case in the area that the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands. It is settled proposition of law that it is 8 the duty and obligation of the petitioner to explain delay of each and every day from the date of knowledge. In arriving to this conclusion we are fortified by the following judgments:-- 2000 M LD 1345; 2000 SCM R 1197; Mian Abdur Rahim Saithi v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Defence.
We are inclined to condone the delay as keeping in view the circumstances of the case as the matter has been finally decided up to the apex Court but the petitioner or his predecessor-in- interest did not obtain the certified copies of the stamp vendor, coupled with the fact that petitioners did not mention a single word about their knowledge when he came to know this fact. It is also settled proposition of law that parties are bound by their pleadings. It is also settled proposition of law that each and every case is to e decided on its own peculiar circumstances. The judgment cited by the D learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law. The application is liable to be dismissed as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ghulam Muhammad's case 1993 SCM R 662.
C.M. 3-2001 Since C.M. 200-C-2001 and C.M. 2-C-2001 have been finally decided therefore, C.M. 3-C-2001 has become infructuous and the same is disposed of as such. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.