NAZIR AHMAD SIDDIQUI, J. -- The history of the case as emerges out from the record is that the petitioners instituted a suit for possession of the suit land measuring 134 kanals, 4 marlas (fully detailed in the plaint) against Jaffar Hussain and his wife Mst. Fakhera Begun (now respondent No. 1) and Syed Ahmad Shah (now deceased, being represented by 'respondents Nos. 7 to 17). It was alleged in the plaint that said Jaffar Hussain sold the suit land on 15.12.1970 and got a mutation No. 365 entered in their favour after receiving a sum of Rs. 25,350/- as sale price but the same was rejected by the Revenue Officer as the same was found to be in violation of the provisions of MLR 64; against the order of Revenue Officer petitioners' appeal was also rejected by the Collector Toba Tek Singh, however, in those proceedings the said Jaffar Hussain admitted to have received the consideration amount aforesaid in the statement on 7.3.1972 and he also agreed to sell the same suit land in consideration of Rs. 30,000/- whereupon another sum of Rs. 4650/- was paid to him.
Said Jaffar Hussain again got entered mutation No. 425 of sale but again the same was rejected on the ground of violation of MLR 64. After sometime said Jaffar Hussain alienated his entire land i.e., 447 kanals, 19 marlas to his wife .Mst. Famera (by way of mutation of gift No. 497) and his brother Syed Ahmad Shah (by way of mutation of sale No. 498). Both these mutations were attested on 8.7.1974.
2. Thus the petitioners were obliged to institute a suit seeking possession of the suit land in the above background and have also challenged mutations attested in favour of Mst. Fakhera and Syed Ahmad Shah, the wife and brother of Jaffar Hussain respectively.
3. The suit was hotly contested. Keeping in view the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed the following issues:-
(1) Whether the amended plaint is in accordance with the order of permission of the Court. If not with what effect? OPP
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form?
OPD
(3) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
(4) Whether the parties entered into a valid agreement for the sale of suit land and the sate price was paid by the plaintiffs? OPP.
(5) Whether the subsequent sale of suit land vide mutation Nos. 497 and 498 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 was valid and legal, for consideration and without notice. If so, with what effect on the rights of the plaintiffs?
(6) Relief.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions .
5. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh dismissed the suit vide his judgment and decree dated 1.10.1984. The main ground for dismissal of the suit which found favour with the learned Senior Civil Judge was that the mutations got incorporated in favour of the petitioners (mutations Nos.
497 and 498, dated 8.7.174) were unlawful because of violation of MLR 64. But at the same time he found the petitioners entitled to, receive a sum of Rs. 30,000/- which was in fact paid to said Jaffar Hussain.
6. Two appeals were filed against above judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 1.10.1984 one by the present petitioners and one by Jaffar Hussain and his wife and brother.
The learned Additional" District Judge confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and dismissed both the appeals vide his judgment and decree dated '7.11.1985.
7. Now only the petitioners have challenged the aforesaid judgments and decrees by filing the instant revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that when the consideration amount was held to be received by Jaffar Hussain (since died' now being represented by his legal heirs, respondents Nos. 1 to 5; Mst. Fakhera, respondent No. 1, has already been impleaded in the revision petition in her own capacity being a transferee of the part of suit land) then there was no justification for the learned Courts below to withhold the relief of possession. He further argued that the impugned mutations whereby the entire land of deceased Jaffar Hussain has been transferred in favour of his wife and brother, were an outcome of fraud and the same were made with ulterior motive in order to defeat the rights of the petitioners.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgments and decrees. He pointed out that the present revision petition is hit by doctrine of laches and the revision petitioners had not approached this Court with clean hands as they had already filed execution proceedings in the learned Court below for release of Rs. 32,383/- as ordered by the learned Courts below. This fact has been purposely concealed in the revision petition, thus they are not, entitled to have any relief, what to take of equitable relief. He added that by filing execution proceedings the petitioners had accepted the impugned judgments in toto and they are estopped from challenging the same in this Court. He further submitted that the scope of interference under Section 115, CPC is extremely limited particularly in the case of the concurrent judgments which have been passed by the learned Courts below in accordance with law and facts of the case.
9. I have given due consideration to the valuable arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance.
10. On my question to the learned counsel for the petitioners, what is his stand about transaction in favor of the petitioners on behalf of Jaffar Hussain deceased, in view of MLR 64 which was applicable at that time. He frankly conceded that the same was, no doubt, in violation of MLR 64.
Meaning thereby admittedly those transactions could not be lawfully, enforced. Thus seen from any angle, the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below have been passed on due appreciation of law and facts; particularly when the amount of consideration (Rs. 30,000/- was ordered to be paid to the petitioners , which was an alternate relief claimed by the petitioners in their plaint. I am convinced the impugned judgments do not suffer from any legal and factual infirmity, the same are maintained on merits.
11. I am also in agreement with the submissions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the instant revision petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. No doubt previously there was no limitation prescribed under the law for filing revision petition. But even then the Courts were very cautious to entertain a revision petition filed beyond a period of ninety days and for that, exceptional circumstances were always taken into consideration, unfortunately no such circumstance is available in favour of the petitioners. The impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Additional District Judge, were passed on 7.11.1985 and the present revision petition was filed in this Court on 14.9.1986. The certified copies of the same were applied on 10.11.1985 and prepared on 23.11.1985 and delivered to the petitioners on 24.11.1985. There is no explanation whatsoever, for what reasons and -under what circumstances the instant revision petition had been filed with such an inordinate delay. Seen from this angle, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Reference will, be made to 1990 CLC 1828.
12. For what has been stated above, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed on merits as well as being hit by doctrine of latches. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.