1994 PLP 1195 (CLC)

3. The defendant respondent No. 1 resisted the suit and in his written statement tried to justify the validity of the impugned order, dated 27‑4‑1981, passed by him as also that of the order, dated 17‑11‑1977, passed by defendant respondent No.

2. He took up the position that Property No. S‑83‑R‑32 and property bearing Khasra No. 2732 was one and the same property. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was also challenged and estoppel was also pleaded in defence. 4. , On the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Judge framed the following issues:‑‑ Issues: ' (1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD (2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to bring this suit? OPD (3) Whether the order dated 27‑4‑1981 passed by Mr. Abdul Majid, Administrator (Residual Properties), Lahore and order dated 17‑11‑1977 passed by Chairman, E.P.T.B., are illegal and void? OPP (4) Relief. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing their counsel, the learned Civil Judge, vide his judgment, dated 15‑2‑1990, dismissed the suit after deciding all the issues against him. Aggrieved by these findings, he went up in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore but there too he remained unsuccessful and has now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 5. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff‑petitioner at some length. Though he had said nothing about the limitation involved in this civil revision yet it appears to be hopelessly time‑barred. The certified copy of the impugned judgment and decree, dated 13‑5‑1992, passed by the learned Additional District Judge was applied for on 17‑5‑1992 and it was supplied to him on 22‑6‑1992 but the civil revision was filed on 13‑6‑1993. It was returned under certain objections and with the direction for its refiling within seven days but it was actually refiled on 21‑9‑1993. The interval between 23‑6‑1992 up to 5‑5‑1993 has been sought to be covered with the help of ten medical certificates about the ailment of the plaintiff‑petitioner issued by Dr. Muhammad Azam, having his Clinic at 32, Kot Khawaja Saeed, Lahore but there is no plausible explanation furnished by the learned counsel for the plaintiff‑petitioner as to why did he consume mare than three months in refiling the civil revision after the removal of his objections. The medical certificates consistently issued one after the other by Dr. Muhammad Azam appear to be fake and false documents and a crude attempt on the part of the plaintiff‑petitioner to cover up limitation which had made his civil revision time‑barred. It can, therefore, be dismissed on the ground of limitation but I shall also consider it on merits.

6. The record shows that the contest about the disputed plot has been between the plaintiff‑petitioner and one Saghir Ahmad, who has not been impleaded as a party in this litigation. The latter had brought ejectment proceedings against the former wherein he had been adjudged as a tenant and his ejectment had been ordered. It appears that the matter attained finality as the plaintiff‑petitioner did not agitate the matter before any higher forum. Perhaps then he took recourse to the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Lahore and obtained the allotment order, dated 28‑2‑1980, in his favour. Pursuant to this order a PTD was also allegedly issued to him but he did not bring it or its certified copy on the record and in the absence of this document nothing can be presumed in this regard. His opponent Saghir Ahmad challenged the said order, dated 28‑2‑1980, before defendant respondent No. 1, who, vide his order, dated 27‑4‑1981, after hearing both the parties, set aside the order of the Deputy Administrator (Residual Properties), Lahore, dated 28‑2‑1980, and cancelled the allotment of the plaintiff‑petitioner in respect of the disputed plot by holding that it war the same property which bore No. S‑83‑R‑32 and had already been declared as Evacuee Trust Property by respondent No. 2, vide his order, dated 17‑11‑1977. Thus it is obvious .that the impugned orders of the defendants‑respondents were not suffering from any legal infirmity and no fault can be found with the concurrent findings of the Courts below on all the issues. The civil revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine on the ground of limitation as also on merits.

7. A copy of this order should be sent to the Registrar, Pakistan Medical and Dental Council, Islamabad for taking disciplinary action against Dr. Muhammad Azam for professional misconduct for issuing fake certificates about the illness of the plaintiff‑petitioner to be used in judicial proceedings. M.Z.S./M‑1352/L Revision dismissed