Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.1783 of 1983, decided on 14th June, 1986.

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Orders of Appellate Court below, setting aside judgment and decree passed by trial Court, having been based on relevant evidence on record and not suffering from any error of law or of fact, held, would not justify to be interfered in revisional jurisdiction by High Court.

‑‑‑S.42‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art,120‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Challenging mutation by means of declaratory suit‑ Limitation for Plaintiff /petitioner, alleging himself owner in possession of suit land, challenged mutation of such land made in favour of defendant after about 18 years by means of declaratory suit‑‑Plaintiff did not state anything as to when and how he came to know of disputed mutation‑‑Trial Court decreed suit but Appellate Court reversing Trial Court's judgment and decree, dismissed same on point of limitation‑ Appellate Court, held, was justified in setting aside judgment and decree of Trial Court and in dismissing suit in revision in circumstances.

M. D. Tahir for Petitioners.

M. Iqbal Ch. for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 30th April, 1986.

Chanan son of Amir Bakhsh, father of the petitioners in this civil revision, filed suit against Primary School, Chak No.448, Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad and 20 others for declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of the land, described in the plaint, and that mutation dated 18‑1‑1957, in respect the suit land, was illegal, void and ineffective against his rights. As a consequential relief, he further prayed for injunction restraining the defendants from acting upon the said mutation and from interfering with his possession over the suit land.

The suit was contested by the defendants. The trial 'Court framed the following issues:‑

(1) Does not the suit lie in its present form O.P.D.

(2) Is the suit bad for non‑joinder of necessary parties O.P.D.

(3) Is the suit bad for misjoinder of parties O .P . D.

(4) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action O.P.D.

(5) Is the plaint insufficiently stamped O.P.D.

(6) Does the civil Court lack jurisdiction to try this suit O.P.D.

(7) Is the plaintiff estopped by his conduct from bringing this suit O. P. D.

(8) Is defendant No.1 entitled to special costs. If so, to what extent O.P.D.

(9) Relief.

Later on, following two issues were added:‑--

(i) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the suit land O.P.O.

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and injunction prayed for O.P.D.

In the first instance, the suit was decreed ex parte on 11‑6‑1975, but on the application of defendant No.1 the ex parte decree was set aside on 12‑9‑1975. Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit partly. The plaintiff was declared to be owner in possession of 4 Kanals and 6 Marlas of land. Injunction was issued restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the said land. The other relief sought by the plaintiff was not granted.

The judgment and decree of the trial Court was challenged in appeal before the District Judge by the Province of Punjab and 2 others. The District Judge accepted the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. The suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

The legal heirs of Chanan have now filed this revision against the judgment and decree of the appellate Court.

Learned counsel appearing in support of this revision contended that the appellate Court erred in law in ignoring the evidence produced by the predecessor‑in‑interest of, the petitioners in support of his claim. It was argued that there was sufficient evidence to show that the property belonged to the petitioners' father, who was in actual possession. Learned counsel further submitted that Chanan had the legal right to challenge Mutation 237, dated 18‑1‑1957 when he acquired knowledge about the same.

I also heard learned counsel for the respondents who argued that the impugned judgment and decree called for no interference. The appellate Court after taking all the relevant evidence into consideration set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. There was no error either of law or of fact which justified interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

The appellate Court examined the evidence led by the parties and came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation.

The best evidence to be considered in this connection is the statement of the plaintiff. I have gone through that and have also taken into consideration the other evidence. The plaintiff did not say as to when and how he came to know of the mutation, dated 18‑1‑1957, which he challenged in the civil suit.

I am, therefore of the view that the appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissing the suit.

There is thus no merit in this civil revision, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

H.B.T. Revision dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.