This petition is directed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Muzaffargarh, dated 20-3-1999 maintaining the decree of the trial Court, dated 30-5-1998.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners restraining than from interference in their possession and demolition of the construction over the piece of land measuring 18 Marlas situated in Khata No,62 in the Revenue estate of Mauza Chohar Pur, Tehsil and District Muazaffargarh, identifiable from the description given in the plaint.
Plaintiffs had purchased the suit-land for consideration of Rs,70,000 from one Kaloo son of Allah Ditta and its possession was handed over to them. Petitioners-defendants in their written statement in reply to para.1 expressed their ignorance. However, vide Exh.A/3 their learned counsel Mr. Saeed Shahzad Jafari, Advocate made a statement that petitioners Nos,1 to 3 do not intend to occupy the suit-land, detail of which had been given in the plaint. The Court acting upon the statement of their learned counsel vide Exh.PA, dismissed the suit having become infructuous due 'to lack of cause of action but subsequently petitioners resiled from their .statement, occupied the suit-land forcibly which obliged the respondents to institute contempt application against them.
The petitioners submitted reply of the said application whereupon the trial Court framed the following issue:-- "Whether the respondents have wilfully committed contempt of Court? OPP:
3. Muhammad Ramzan respondent appeared as A.W.1, Kaleem A.W.2, Rahim Bakhsh A.W.3 and also placed on file documentary evidence Exh.A/1 to Exh.A/6. Petitioners absented themselves from the proceedings, so ex parte proceedings were conducted against them vide order, dated 18-1-1995 and ultimately through order, dated 30-5-1998 the application of the respondents was partially accepted to the extent that their possession was restored and the petitioners were directed to restore the status quo ante with immediate effect otherwise plaintiffs can get possession through execution. Respondents were still dissatisfied, therefore, they challenged the order in appeal for acceptance of their contempt application in toto. Learned Additional District Judge after hearing the parties accepted the contempt application of respondents as prayed for, hence the present revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the respondents have not specified the land purchased by them either in the sale-deed or through any document. The incident of their dispossession by the petitioners from the suit-land is not proved. Out of joint Khata the respondents purchased 18 Marlas of land and unless the property is partitioned respondents cannot claim exclusive possession. Lower Courts misread the evidence in accepting the contempt application of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order.
5. Heard. Record perused.
6. In reply to the suit instituted by respondents learned counsel for the p petitioners made statement on 16-1-1994 that they do not intend to occupy the land in dispute detail whereof is given in the plaint. They also filed written statement on similar lines. In plaint Exh.PA/1 it is categorically stated that the land described therein was purchased by the respondents who constructed a Katcha room and is in their possession. This paragraph of the plaint was denied by petitioners for want of knowledge. They have not specifically denied the possession of respondents or that they have not purchased this piece of land, in written statement Exh.PA/2. It was an evasive reply. Sale-deed shows purchase of land by respondents, whereupon they raised some construction. Exh.PA/5 is sale-deed whereas Exh.PA/6 is certified copy of mutation. Learned Additional District Judge for valid reasons discredited the report of the local commission holding it manoeuvred one, falsified by above referred sale-deed and mutation.
6. The petitioners are bound by the statement of their learned counsel wherein he categorically stated that they have no intention to dispossess the respondents. The suit was fructified for lack of cause of action on the basis of the said statement. During the trial of contempt application petitioners absented themselves and the Court was forced to pass ex parte order against them.
Trial Court after recording the evidence and exhibiting the documentary evidence concluded that they have violated order of Court, therefore, the possession of the respondents was restored without recording their conviction prescribed under Contempt of Courts Act, 1976. On appeal the application of respondents for contempt was accepted in toto and they have been convicted to six months' S.I. in addition to restoration of possession. It is clear from the record that the respondents were the owners in possession of the suit property and after the dismissal of their suit, no the basis of statement of petitioners' counsel, they forcibly took over the possession in violation of the statement of their learned counsel. They have tried to frustiate the proceedings with the intention to forcibly occupy The suit property after disposal of the suit. They did not contest contempt application and were proceeded against ex parte. The evidence produced by the respondents in the form of plaint, written statement, statement of counsel for the petitioners Exh.PA/3. sale-deed and mutation clearly established that the petitioners are guilty of contempt. Learned Additional District Judge properly appreciated the evidence while accepting the application of respondents in toto and in convicting the petitioners. No material has been placed on record to conclude contrary to the findings of lower appellate Court, which are based on proper appreciation of evidence and warrants no interference. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. The petitioners be taken into custody for implementation of the order of learned Additional District Judge, dated 20-3-1999 to serve the sentence awarded to them.