2024 PLP 780 (MLD)

Safdar Saleem Shahid, J.

Through this Civil Revision the petitioners have assailed the order dated 22.09.2021 vide which the learned Additional District Judge during the pendency of appeal against the judgment, and decree dated 11.10.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge, dismissed two applications of the petitioners filed under Order I Rule 10, C.P.C. and the application for the settlement of the proposed issue.

2. Brief facts of the instant Civil Revision are that Mubarak Shah the respondent filed a suit lor declaration regarding inheritance share against the present petitioners, the petitioners filed the written statement and thereafter, the issues were framed and after the due trial (regarding evidence of the parties) the suit of the respondent was decreed in his favour against the present petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2013; that the petitioners assailed that judgment and decree before the appellate court; that during the proceedings, the petitioners filed the applications under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. and for framing of the additional issues; that both the applications were contested by the respondents and the learned court vide impugned order dismissed both the applications.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that the court has not exercised its jurisdictions in view of the judgments of the apex court when the mutations are challenged on the specific esound of fraud then the province of Punjab, Tchsildar, .Girdawar and Patwari are the necessary parties. Counsel for the petitioners in this regard referred cases "Sakhi Jan and others v Shah Nawaz and another" (2020 SCMR 832), "Sikandar Hayat and others v Sughran Bibi, and 6 others" (2020 SCMR 214), "Shehwaar and 2 others v Muhammad Riaz and others" (2018.YLR 1938) and "Mian Zafar Ali and another v Mian Khursheed Ali" (2020 SCMR 291).

4. The contention or the counsel for the petitioners was that the parties may be impleaded at any stage of the suit. The counsel placed the reliance on case "Safiullah Khan and 4 others v PIA Officers Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Rawalpindi" (1992 MLD 967). It was further argued that it was duty of the court to frame the issues in view of the pleadings of the.parties as without proper settlement of the issues, the controversy between the parties cannot be resolved. In this regard counsel placed reliance on case "Mst. Sughran Bibi and others v Mst. Jameela Begum and others (2001 SCAM 772), "Shabbir Ahmed v- Muhammad Muzamil Hussain and another" (PLD 2021 Bal. 79). It was argued that unless the proper issues are not framed, the controversy cannot be resolved and even if the parties had not pressed for framing of a specific issue, it is the duty of the court to frame the issue. Counsel placed reliance on 2008 SCMR 1384 case titled as "Mst. Rasheeda Bibi and others v Mukhtar Ahmad and others".

5. Nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, hence, proceeded ex-parte.

6. The rcspondents filed the suit for declaration on 27.10.2009 with the allegation that the petitioners got sanctioned the inheritance mutation No.238 dated 24.12.1943 while omitting the name of the respondent in the list of the legal and all these proceedings were completed while conceanling the facts. There is no specific allegation against any of the Revenue Officers that any of the Revenue Officer or Official was part of that conspiracy of omitting the name of the petitioners at the relevant time i.e. at the time of sanctioning of the mutation. The relevant para No.2 of the plaint is hereby reproduced:- Nowhere in the plaint any specific allegation is raised against any Revenue Officer or Official whereas the judgmelied upon are very specific on this point. It is mentioned in 2020 SCMR 214 case titled as "Sikandar Hayat and others v Sughran Bibi and 6 others", "O.I, R.10

Suit for declaration challenging a mutation

Allegation of connivance by revenue officials

Necessary party

Scope

When it was pleaded in a suit that with the connivance of the revenue officials any mutation was got attested and the same was challenged through a civil suit, the Provincial Government as well as the revenue officials against whom the connivance for attestation of the mutation was alleged, were necessary parties in the suit

When plaintiff alleged connivance of the said officials of Revenue Department with the defendants of the suit for getting a mutation attested, then without participation of the said officials, no valid adjudication could be carried out against them and no finding (of connivance) could be recorded against them in their absence. The same proposition has been discussed in -the other referred citation the revenue officer by name can be impleaded in the suit if the court feels it necessary and when there is a specific allegation against him for being the part of some illegal act otherwise the matters which are required to be decided on the basis of documents and the other related/relevant oral evidence, the Officials/Officers of Revenue Departiment are not necessary to be impleaded in such proposition, as the relevant record can be requisitioned and analyzed by the court. The other aspect of this proposition is that the suit was filed on 27.10.2000 and the petitioners filed the written statement on 06.03.2010 without raising any objection and even in the evidence there is nothing about the fact that Revenue Officers/Officials are necessary party to the lis. Therefore, to that extent the learned Court has rightly decided the fate of the application as it was filed after the remarkable delay as the appeal was filed on 04.11.2013 and this application under Order I Rule 10 of C.P.C. was filed on 05.12.2020 after the lapse of about 07 years for which there is no.justification.

7. So far as the other application for settlement or issues is concerned. Court is bound to frame the issues in view of the pleadings of the parties. In the written statement there is nothing mentioned about the compromise deed dated 04.08.1995. So. far as relinquishment deed dated 03.09.1964 is concerned that has been covered in the issue No.l. The petitioner has submitted the evidence regarding the relinquihment deed dated 03.09.1964 Ex.D1 and the same has been considered and discussed by the learned trial court while deciding the fate of the suit under issue No.1, so to fill in the lacunas, no party can be allowed to seek any ravour. The issues were framed on 07.04.2010, neither the petitioners objected on any issue nor submitted any application before the court for resettlement of the issues or to frame any additional issue in view of the pleadings and the compromise deed dated 04.08.1965 was even not mentioned in the written statement by the petitioners. The court framed the issues in view of the prnciple laid down by the apex court. The main controversy was highlighted through the issues. Parties tendered their evidence regarding the same and the relinquishment deed was tendered in the evidence and the same was discussed by the court at length. Even the petitioners did not tender the compromise deed mentioned in the evidence. This is settled principle that nobody can be allowed to fill in the lacunas affter the 07 years of decision passed by the learned Civil Court, this application has been tendered without mentioning any reason that why document was not mentioned in the written statement and also was not tendered in the evidence. This is a private document which cannot be allowed to place on record at this stage and when the same was not mentioned in the written statement the court is not bound to frame the issue regarding the same. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly disallowed the application for framing of the additional issues.

8. In view of' the above, the petitioners were unable to point out any illegality or irregularity in the order, hence, instant Civil Revision is hereby dismissed. MQ/144/L Revision dismissed