' KHALIL-UR-RAHMAN RAMDAY, J.---This order shall dispose of C.P.L.A. No, 2003-L/2000 and C.P.L.A.
No,2018-L/2000 asboth these petitions are directed against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 1-6-2000 through which Civil Revision No,1589/1999 as also W.P. No,19170 of 1999 filed by the petitioners had been dismissed.
2. One Atta Hussain owned 32 Kanals and 16 Marlas of land situated in Mauza Gunian Wala of Tehsil Wazirabad. He died before the creation of Pakistan in the year, 1947 leaving behind a widow, namely, Mst. Ghulam Fatima and two daughters, namely, Mst. Rasheeda Begum and Mst. Ghulam Zohra. On the death of Atta Hussain the said land was mutated in the name of his widow Mst.
Ghulam Fatima as a limited owner. The said Mst. Ghulam Fatima was alleged to have executed a general power of attorney in favour of Saleem Ullah respondent who was the husband of her daughter Mst. Ghulam Zohra (respondent No,7). Purportingly exercising his authority under the said power of attorney the said Saleem Ullah respondent transferred the entire above mentioned land, being held by Mst. Ghulam Fatima as a limited owner, in favour of the said Mst. Ghulam Zohra who was a daughter of the limited owner and the wife of Saleem Ullah, through Mutation No, 560, dated 13-5-1989. This Saleem Ullah respondent obtained a further general power of attorney from his wife Mst. Ghulam Zohra respondent and sold the said land to Ghulam Ahmad Hussain and others (the petitioners before us) through a consent decree, dated 9-3-1994.
3. The heirs of Mst. Rasheeda Begum, the other daughter of the limited owner, namely, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, filed a suit in the Court of a learned Civil Judge at Wazirabad questioning the purported transfer of the entire estate left behind by Atta Hussain and held by his widow as a limited owner in favour of Mst. Ghulam Zohra. They also filed an application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. Praying for setting aside of the above mentioned consent decree, dated 9-3-1994 through which the said suit-land had been further transferred in the name of the present petitioners who had allegedly purchased the said land.
4. Through his consolidated judgment, dated 26-6-1998 a learned Civil Judge at Wazirabad dismissed the suit filed by the heirs and successors-in-interest of Mst. Rasheeda Begum and similar was the fate met by the above mentioned application filed by the said heirs and successors of Mst. Rasheeda Begum under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. This judgment was impugned before the learned District Judge by way of appeal to the extent of dismissal of the suit and by way of a revision petition to the extent of the dismissal of the application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C.
Through his judgment, dated 28-7-1999 a learned Additional District Judge, Wazirabad allowed the said appeal and the said revision as a result whereof the suit filed by the heirs and successors of Mst. Rasheeda Begum was decreed with costs and the applicationunder section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by them was allowed as a consequence whereof the above mentioned decree, dated 9-3-1994 was set aside. The appellate judgment of the learned Additional District Judge was questioned before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No, 1589 of 1999 while the revisional judgment of the said learned Judge emanating from the application under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. Was impugned through the above mentioned Writ Petition No,19170 of 1999. Both these petitions were filed by the present petitioners before us who are the alleged purchasers of the suit-land from Mst.
Ghulam Zohra above mentioned. Through its judgment, dated 1-6-2000, the Lahore High Court dismissed both these petitions and it is that judgment which is being challenged before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has been heard at some length and we have also gone through the available record in the light of the submissions made by him.
6. Having failed to point out any illegality or any misreading or non-reading of the available record by the learned Additional District Judge and the Hon'ble High Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the land purchased by the petitioners from Mst. Ghulam Zohra was not the land which was owned by her father Atta Hussain and which reached her through her mother but was a different piece of land which had been acquired by Mst. Ghulam Zohra from elsewhere.
We confronted the learned counsel with the pleadings of the petitioners before the subordinate Courts and the stance taken by them even before the High Court wherein such a plea had never been taken by the present petitioners up to the level of the High Court. Such a submission raising a new factual controversy could not be permitted to be made for the first time before the Supreme Court especially when no issue had ever been claimed on such a question and when such a stance had never been pleaded before any Court up to the High Court.
7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in these petitions which are accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.