MUHAMMAD AKBAR through L.Rs, vs Major TAJJUDDIN through L.Rs,

ORDER

KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- A suit filed by the petitioners for possession of the suit-land, through pre-emption, was decreed, ex parte, within about two months of its institution. While the respondents were making efforts to have the said ex parte decree set aside, the petitioners, within about the next three months, had the said decree executed. This happened in December, 1981. The respondents could not succeed at the trial Court and appellate Court level and it was finally the Lahore High Court which set aside the said ex parte decree and remanded the matter back to the trial Court for proceeding with the suit, on its merits, in accordance with law. The petitioners impugned the said decision of the High Court before this Court but failed.

2. When a decree was passed in favour of the petitioners even though it was an ex parte decree and the judgment-debtors was taking steps to have the same set aside, the petitioners took no time to have the said decree executed to enjoy the fruits of the same.

3. Now that the said decree has been set aside, the petitioners are dragging their feet and are not willing to let the respondents reap the fruits of the orders passed in their favour and filed an application praying for a temporary injunction against the restoration of possession to the vendee- respondent as a result of the setting aside of the ex parte decree.

4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the said application on 17-7-1991. The appeal filed by the petitioners before the learned District Judge failed through a judgment of a learned Additional District Judge dated 8-6-2004. Civil Revision No,814 of 2004 filed by the petitioners in the Lahore High Court failed vide judgment, dated 8-3-2006.

5. The petitioners, as has been mentioned above, took possession of the suit-land in December, 1981 i,e, about quarter of a century ago. In spite of the fact that the ex parte decree under which this possession was taken, was set aside almost seventeen years ago, and in spite of the fact that three Courts had concurrently found that the petitioners were not entitled to retain the possession, they are still not satisfied and have approached this Court impugning the said concurrent findings.

6. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners at some length who could not point out any infirmity in the impugned concurrent conclusion reached by the three learned Courts. The learned Advocate Supreme Court, however, stressed that if the effect of the execution of the said ex parte decree was set aside then the tenants of the suit-land would become tenants under the vendee-respondents; that the said respondents might then eject the said tenants and induct new ones in their place; that in case the petitioners' suit for possession was ultimately decreed then retaking of possession by the petitioners could lead to bloodshed.

7. We are shocked at this submission made by the learned Advocate Supreme Court which does not deserve any further comments.

8. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.

9. We also find that this was a frivolous and vexatious petition filed only to prolong the agony of the respondents and wasted time of this Court. The petitioners are, therefore, directed to pay Rs,20,000 as costs in terms of Rule 3 of Order XXVIII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. These costs shall be deposited in this Court within one month and the Assistant Registrar shall submit a report about the same, for the information of this Bench.