2008 PLP 405 (CLC)

SH. HAKIM ALI, J.

Through this civil revision, an order, dated 30-7-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur, which had upheld the order/judgment, dated 11-7-1993 passed by Mr. Riaz-ul-Hassan Alvi, the then learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. has been challenged.

2. Facts in brief as narrated by the learned counsel and found from the record are that the house in dispute situated in Mauza Bindra, Tehsil and District Bahawalpur was owned by respondent No.2 Khadim Hussain, who had mortgaged it with House Building Finance Corporation, respondent No.1 on 22-10-1983 through registered assignment deed. As the mortgage money was not paid so a petition under section 30 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952 was filed by respondent No.1, which was ultimately decreed on 11-7-1993 by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalpur. Aggrieved from that decree, dated 11-7-1993 present petitioners filed a petition under section 12(2) of the C.P.C. by stating that the decree, dated 11-7-1993 was passed on the basis of misrepresentation and fraud. As per the petitioners, they had purchased the house in dispute through registered sale-deed dated 5-5-1991 after examining the Revenue Record of the Revenue Department wherein entry of registered mortgage-deed was not found. So; order dated 11-7-1993 may be held to have been passed due to result of misrepresentation.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the house in dispute was mortgaged with respondent No.1 on 22-10-1983 through registered assignment deed. The Revenue Record if had not contained any such entry it would not be deemed that any misrepresentation or fraud was committed because registered deed has got the effectiveness as compared to Revenue Record, which does not extinguish or transfer the title in the immovable property. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel that the application was filed after more than eleven years and 5 months. So, it was badly time-barred.

4. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel and from the perusal of the record it has been found that the petitioners have failed to bring out the misrepresentation or nature of the fraud having been committed while passing the decree, dated 11-7-1993 by learned Additional District Judge. It is settled law that the registered deed has got the presumption of correctness while Revenue Record has got no such presumption. If the entries have not been made in the Revenue Record it would not be considered that the registered assignment deed its effectiveness would evaporate. The petitioners who were purchasing the property had to be careful and cautious and had to examine the record of registration office before the purchase of the property. Moreover, the vendor who was in knowledge of these if had not disclosed these facts to the vendees, it was between the vendor and the vendees. The decree passed as against the property in dispute cannot be held to be void or result of misrepresentation or fraud having been committed to the Court. Therefore, the civil revision cannot be accepted and is dismissed. H.B.T./S-203/L Revision dismissed.