' The interim relief is sought against the judgment dated 25-9-2001 passed by a learned' Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing the Constitutional petition filed by the petitioner.
A prayer is made that. The execution proceedings respecting/qua the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed shop be stayed and status quo in all respect be ordered to be maintained respecting his possession.
2. This case has got most chequered history. Facts briefly are that the disputed property was allotted to one Muhammad Hussain Shah and P.T.D. Was issued to him. He gifted this property in favour of Anjumane-Khaliqia through Waqf Nama No,264 dated 29-5-1964. The mutation entry in this respect was also recorded in Revenue Record.
3. Thereafter, Yatim Khana through its Manager who is respondent No,1 in the present petition filed ejectment petition on 10-12-1980, which was hotly contested by the petitioner. Ultimately an ejectment order was passed by the learned Rent Controller on 15-11-1983. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Distract Judge through his judgment dated 5-1-1984. Writ Petition No,269 of 1984 also met the same fate and was dismissed on 30-1-1984. This Court on 12-2-1984 dismissed the petition for leave to appeal against the aforesaid ejectment order and leave to appeal was declined.
4. The present petitioner in order to frustrate the outcome of the ejectment order filed a declaratory suit on 12-6-1988 with consequential relief claiming right over the disputed property on the basis of its alleged allotment to him. Issues were framed. However, instead of bringing hissuit to its logical conclusion, he' moved an application for framingadditional issues, which was rejected by the learned Civil Judge. He secured adjournment from the trial Court for one month stating that he had filed an appeal against the rejection order. However, on 11-3-1993 he filed another application under Order 14, rule 1, C.P.C., which was dismissed. Revision petition against the said order was returned for its presentation to the proper forum on 18-5-1994.
5. Thereafter, instead of following this matter, the petitioner madeanother application under Order 6, rule 17, C.P.C. For the amendment of his plaint on 26-9-1994 after a period of more than six years of the filing of the suit. This application too was rejected through order dated 1-11-1994 by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Faisalabad by imposing a cost of Rs,1,000. The revision petition against the same was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, through his order dated 18-5-1995 imposing special cost of Rs,3,000 upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed Writ Petition bearing No,6764 of 1995 against all these orders. Since the proceedings were not stayed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through order dated 6-10-1997 as such the petitioner filed Civil Petition No,1015-L of 1997 challenging the said interim order passed by the High Court before this Court. However, after two years of filing this petition, he withdrew the same on 29- 1-1999 seeking direction that his suit be decided within two months. The order of this Court was as under:-- "Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the petition provided a direction is issued to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suit. In the circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court shall hear and decide the suit within two months. With this observation, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn."
' In spite of aforesaid order, the petitioner did not get his suit decided. The Writ Petition No,6764 of 1995 ultimately came up for hearing on 25-9-2001. The learned Judge found misrepresentation and suppression on the part of the petitioner in the pursuit of his Constitutional petition so as to frustrate the process of the Court. He after detailed order dismissed the Constitutional petition through judgment dated 25-9-2001 and deprecated the conduct of the petitioner in the following words:- "This effort at misguiding the Court and concealing the true facts is nothing but regrettable."
' Having failed in securing favourable order from the Lahore High Court, he filed Civil Petition No, 3320-L of 2001 alongwith a civil miscellaneous application under Order XX, rule 1 of the Supreme Court Ruels, 1980, for grant of stay on 20-10-2001 before this Court,. Which remained pending. The petitioner now after more than two years has moved an application on 6-1-2004 and prays for the stay of execution proceedings which prayer was also made as far back as on 18-10-2001.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant at quite some length. After arguing at a considerable length, the learned counsel for the applicant made a prayer that this stay application be listed alongwith the main petition which prayer was declined by me keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case. Thereafter, he prayed for withdrawal of the stay application, which too was rejected being mala fide in nature.
7. The reading of this case brings me to an irresistible conclusion that how the process of Court is being misused by the unscrupulous litigant so as to frustrate the ejectment order which was passed more than three decades earlier. The property under dispute was gifted to respondent No,1, a Yatim Khana (Orphanage Centre) more than four decades earlier in sixties. The ejectment order passed against the petitioner attained finality as the determination of all the Courts was upheld by this Court through order dated 12-2-1984. However, to frustrate the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed a frivolous suit in a mala fide manner in the year 1988 embroiling the poor Yatim Khana in an uncalled for litigation. He made several applications one after the other so as to prolong the agony of the respondent (Yatim Khana) and succeeded in perpetuating his possession. All his applications were dismissed with cost. He even made misrepresentation as the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court took notice of the same as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It is also reflected that he filed a declaratory suit against the Settlement Department, which too was rejected. He fully participated in the ejectment proceedings but did not take as reflected from the documents, his plea of alleged allotment to him. His own witness Abdul Hameed, P.W.1 had admitted in cross-examination that Anjuman was the owner of the property.
Even in his own statement recorded by the trial Court in the suit on 28-2-1995, he had admitted that he did not remember how many suits he had filed respecting this property. This is sorry state of affairs. In spite of all these facts, he succeeded in an illegal manner to thwart the execution proceedings for more than two decades. Even the learned Executing Court had not taken notice of all these aspects and dragged the execution proceedings for such a long period. This is unfortunate state of situation of litigation in this country. At this juncture it would be appropriate to reproduce the observations of the Judicial Committee of Privy Councilmade as far back as in the year 1872 in the case titled The General Manager of the Raj Durbhunga, under the Court of Wards v.
Maharajah Coomar Ramaput Singh 14 MIA 605= 17 WR 459 = 10 BLRPC 294 = 2 Suth. PCJ 117 respecting the plight of litigants in this part of the world which are as under:-- "The Right Hon. Sir James Colvile:--These proceedings certainly illustrate what was said by Mr. Doyne and what has been often stated before, that the difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he has obtained a decree. When whoever, the actual question which is at issue between the appellant and the A respondent on this appeal is elimina:ed frOm the rest of the record. It does not appear to their Lordships to present any very great difficulty." (underline is mine)
' The process of execution as in vogue in our system has totally shatteredthe confidence reposed by the general public in our judicial system. Firstly, it takes years for a suit Of any kind to reach its logical conclusion. Thereafter, the decree-holder has to file execution proceedings, which more or less is contested like a suit. Sufficient time is spent before the Executing Court and the matter is contested by the judgment-debtor like a suit by filing number of applications just to prolong the matter. It takes years to finalize the same.
8. As already stated the Privy Council made remarks about this malady prevalent in our judicial system hundred and thirty years earlier. This situation has not improved after all this long period of more than one and quarter of century. Rather it has got worsened and the parties suffer agonies of litigation without final determination respecting their cause for generations. Having noticed unfortunate facts of this case as also the gimmickry of the petitioner whereby in an unscrupulous manner he successfully stalled the execution and deprived the respondent Yatim Khana for more than two decades, I am constrained to observe that unless and until this malady in the judicial system is remedied at the earliest otherwise it would be too late to mend the same as the poor litigants are losing their confidence in the prevalent judicial system. To ameliorate this situation, I suggest that some legislative measures should be made whereby the decree-holder is protected from the evil gimmicks of the judgment-debtor and I propose as under:--
(a) That the trial Court while passing the decree should also give order/direction to the judgment- debtor for the implementation of the same which naturally would be few days more than the period provided for appeal/revision. The arrangements should also be made that the certified copies of the order are provided to the respective parties without any delay.
(b) If the decree is stayed by the Appellate Court then the trial Court should close the chapter. In the similar manner the Appellate Court if upholds the decree should also give some time for its implementation and fix the case before itself and ensure its compliance unless the operation of the decree is suspended by a higher forum.
(c) That the provision of section 12(2), C.P.C. Which provides for challenge to the decree on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation and lack of jurisdiction should also be construed strictly and in case such an application is filed by any of the parties, the same should be scrutinized by the Court passing the decree minutely and if the same is found r, be frivolous or vexatious, it should be dismissed summarily with a heavy fine.
' This sort of process if adopted would go a long way not only in lessening the expenses and agonies of the litigants but would also curtail the judicial work/pendency.
9. Resultantly, for what has stated above, this miscellaneous application is hereby dismissed. I would have imposed heavy cost upon the applicant but since the other side is not represented, as such, I have shown restraint. The office is directed to send copies of this order to the learned Principal Secretary, Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights, the learned Secretary, Law & Justice Commission of Pakistan and the learned District Judge concerned for information and further necessary action.