' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.--- This petition is directed against the judgment dated 16-10-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan through which Constitutional petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. The land in dispute was allotted to Muhammad Yahya Khan claimant. On his death, the same was mutated in the name of Mst. Bismillah, Mst. Ahmad Bibi daughters, Muhammad Farooq Ahmad Khan, son, Mst. Irshad Begum and Mst. Mehmood Begum, two widows being his heirs.
3. According to the case of the petitioners they had already executed a power of attorney in favour of Muhammad Ramzan before allotment of the land to arrange allotment in their favour against verified claim. In lieu thereof, it was covenanted in the power of attorney itself that the said attorney would be entitled to get 1/2 share of total 2278 P.I. Units. The case of the present petitioners is that on 1-5-1969, Muhammad Ramzan sold land measuring 424 Kanals in Layyah in respect of which they filed a suit on 2-5-1969 which was decreed on the same date on the basis of consent made by Muhammad Ramzan on behalf of the said allottees who were impleaded as defendants through him. Admittedly, neither any notice was issued to the said allottees nor it was served otherwise. Consenting statement was made by Muhammad Ramzan on their behalf. On the basis of the said decree, the petitioners got a mutation sanctioned in the Revenue Record and are claiming ownership rights in the said land against the said allottees.
4. An application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was moved on 28-10-1986 by Mst. Bismillah daughter and Muhammad Farooq son of Yahya Khan alleging that they had come to know about the said decree and fraud on 4-10-1986. The petitioners contested it. The trial Court after recording evidence came to the conclusion that the said consent decree was based on collusion and fraud, therefore, the same was set aside through order dated 17-10-1994. Against this order, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the District Court which was dismissed through judgment dated 26-3-1996 against which Constitutional petition filed by them has also been dismissed through the impugned judgment dated 16-10-2001 against which leave is sought.
5. It appears that on the basis of the same power of attorney, Muhammad Ramzan attorney had also dealt with and transferred other piece of land in some other village allotted in favour of the said allottees against verified claim of Yahya Khan. They filed similar applications in those proceedings under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which were contested by Muhammad Ramzan and it was held that neither execution of power of attorney in his favour was proved nor the said power of attorney had the effect of giving him a right to transfer the land of the said allottees. The said proceedings went up to the level of this Court and the said findings were upheld. In the present case both the trial Court and the District Court and the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court made reference to the findings recorded in those proceedings and additionally . Upon scrutiny of evidence led in this case, it was found that the transaction entered into by Muhammad Ramzan with the petitioners about sale of land was fraudulent.
6. There is no reason as to why the petitioners should have feld the necessity of filing suit on 2-5- 1969 and getting consent decree on the same day without even calling the allottees/respondents before the Court to make statement as to whether they had given power of attorney to Muhammad Ramzan. This very act of the petitioners speaks volumes of mala fides. As a person of ordinary prudence, they should have insisted that the allottees should come in the Court and make statement so that their title may be perfected beyond reasonable doubt. The proceedings were initiated and concluded summarily without their being any notice to the respondents-allottees, therefore, they were rightly held to have suffered from fraud and collusion.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the property through Muhammad Ramzan. If that be so, it will be open to the respondents to recover possession from the petitioners and also mesne profits for whole of the period.
8. The findings of facts recorded by the Courts below do not suffer from misreading or non-reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, this petition has no merits which is accordingly dismissed and leave refused.