2018 C L C 967
[Balochistan (Turbat Bench)]
Before Abdullah Baloch, J
RAHEEM BAKHSH and another ---Petitioners
Versus
BASHIR AHMED and 4 others ---Respondents
Civil Revision No. (T) 42 of 2017, decided on 15th January, 2018
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) ---
----O. VI, R. 17, O. VIII, R. 1 & O. I, R.10---Suit for declaration ---Concealment of facts
while filing written statement by the defendants ---Imposition of cost ---Scope ---De fendants
while filing written statement did not disclose that they had already sold out the portion of
suit land prior to filing of suit ---Plaintiffs moved application for amendment of plaint and
impleadment of new parties who had purchased the land from t he defendants --- Trial Court
accepted the said application and issued show -cause notice to the defendants for concealment
of facts and imposed cost upon the defendants ---Validity ---Defendants had sold out suit land
prior to institution of suit but that fac t was concealed while filing the written statement---Trial
Court issued show -cause notice to the defendants who failed to deny the same in their
reply/rejoinder ---Trial Court had taken lenient view by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/ - upon the
defendants ---Act o f defendants amounted to contempt of Court and they were liable to be
proceeded against but Trial Court was satisfied by imposing cost upon the defendants ---No
illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the court below ---Revision was dismissed in limine.
Saeed Faiz, for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th December, 2018.
ORDER
ABDULLAH BALOCH, J. ---This order disposes of Civil Revision Petition No.42 of
2017 filed by the petitioners against the or der dated 21st September 2017 (hereinafter
referred as, "impugned order") passed by the learned Qazi Pasni (hereinafter referred as, "the
trial Court"), whereby cost of Rs.5000/ - was imposed against the petitioners/defendants.
2. Brief fact of the petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration
and permanent injunction and correction of entries in respect of land under Khewit/Khatooni No.115/115 Khasra No.710 with the averments that suit land is the ancestral property of the respondents/plaintiffs same is in the peaceful possession, ownership of the respondents/plaintiffs along with an application under Order XXXIX, rule 1, C.P.C.; that the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was contested by the petitioners/defendants by means of
filing written statement along with rejoinder of application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and
2, C.P.C., wherein vehemently denied the claim of the respondents; that in absence of the
counsel of the petitioners/defendants and even without hearing of the argume nts on stay
application, the learned trial Court allowed the stay application of the respondents; that thereafter the respondents/plaintiffs submitted an application under sections 3 and 4 of Contempt of Court Act, whereby alleged that the petitioners/defe ndants became disobedient
to the Court order and during the pendency of the suit they sold out a portion of suit land to the third party; that the application was contested by petitioners/defendants by filing rejoinder and denied the allegation levelled ag ainst them in the said application; that the learned trial
Court was pleased to call for record of revenue through concerned Tehsildar and after perusing the record it was knowing that the sales were effected on 11th May, 2016, 27th July, 2016 and 29th Aug ust, 2016 prior to filing of the instant suit dated 29th November, 2016; that
meanwhile the respondents/ plaintiffs submitted an application under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. for amendment of suit along with section 151 and Order I, Rule 10 of C.P.C., which was accepted by the learned trial Court and the suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs was amended and added new parties, who purchased the land from the petitioners/defendants; that on 28th August, 2017, the learned trial Court issued a show -cause notice to the
petitioner/defendant No.1, wherein alleged that the petitioner/defendant in the written statement as well as in an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., concealed the facts about sale and transfer Nos.11, 12 and 24 of some portion of suit land, which was effected
prior to filing of instant suit, as such, the petitioner/defendant deliberately kept this Court in dark and tried to cheat upon; that the petitioners/defendants filed reply of the show -cause
notice, but however, being not satisfied the learned trial Court imposed cost of Rs.5000/ -
upon the petitioners/defendants vide impugned order dated 21st September, 2017.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the impugned order suffers
from misreading and misappreciation of law an d also suffer from material illegality and
irregularity and the said order is without lawful authority and also suffers from mis -exercise
of jurisdiction; that what so ever has been alleged in the show -cause notice nothing has been
committed by the, petitioners/defendants deliberately or intentionally; that it was the prime responsibility of the respondents/ plaintiffs while filing the suit must had to file the fresh revenue record, but the learned trial Court has failed to consider this important aspect of the
case and to imposed cost upon the respondents/plaintiffs instead of appreciation of record has rightly, furnished by the petitioners, as such, the impugned order is not sustainable and liable to be set aside.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petit ioner and perused the record minutely, which
reveals that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration injunction and correction of mutation entries in the trial Court against the petitioners/defendants. On 29th November, 2016 along with an appl ication under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., which was
contested by the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2, wherein vehemently denied the claim of the plaintiffs.
5. The perusal of written statement of the petitioners/defendants Nos.1 and 2 nowhere
reflects that the suit land was sold out by the defendant No.1 to the someone else, however,
thereafter while calling the revenue record from the Tehsildar concerned, it appeared to the learned trial Court that the suit land was sold out by defendant No.1 on different occasions
i.e. 11th May, 2016, 27th July, 2016 and 29th August, 2016 prior to instituting of the instant suit i.e. on 29th November 2016, but this material fact was concealed by the petitioner/defendant No.1 while filing a written statement befo re the learned trial Court. It is
further appeared that the learned trial Court while issued show -cause notice to the
petitioner/defendant No.1 he failed to deny the same in its reply/rejoinder.
6. In view of the above, the learned trial Court by taking le nient view by imposing the
nominal cost of Rs.5000/ - upon the petitioner. On appearing of such facts in the knowledge
of learned trial Court the respondents/plaintiffs were allowed for amendment of their suit by
impleading the purchasers as necessary party and accordingly the purchasers were made party
to the suit and no objection was raised by the petitioners/defendants for amendment and impleadment of purchasers as necessary party, which is an admission at the part of the petitioners/defendants.
7. In my view, the learned trial Court has taken very lenient view against the
petitioners/defendants for concealment of the facts otherwise the act of petitioner is amount to contempt of Court and they were liable to be proceeded against, but since the trial Court
was satisfied by imposing such cost upon the petitioners, as such, there is no need to further
interfere in the satisfactory order of the learned trial Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioners failed to point out any material illegality or
irregula rity in the impugned order, which warrants for interference by the Court. Accordingly
the petition is being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed in limine.
ZC/30/Bal. Revision dismissedThis judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.