2003 PLP 772 (MLD)

3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that petitioner approached this Court with unclean hands as the petitioner did not attach the grounds of revision of respondents Nos.2 to 12 before the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Sargodha and the order of the Assistant Commissioner along with this writ petition. He further submits that respondents Nos.2 to 12 had taken a specific ground qua the Khasras in question in Grounds No.2 and 3 before the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Sargodha, He further submits that Additional Commissioner Revenue, Sargodha, accepted the appeal of respondents Nos.2 to 12 and committed the mistake qua the Khasra numbers which were mentioned by respondents Nos.2 to 12 in the memorandum of appeal before the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Sargodha vide paras. Nos.2 and 3 therefore, respondents Nos.2 to 12 had only remedy to file application for correction of the decree of the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Sargodha, by filing an application under section 152, C.P.C. before him. He further submits that Member, Board of Revenue had ample power to correct the error committed by his subordinate, therefore, impugned order of the Member, Board of Revenue is valid and in accordance with law. He further submits that Member; Board of Revenue passed the order after perusing the original record and corrected the mistake committed by the Additional Commissioner Revenue, Sargodha, therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal, reiterates his contentions that Member, Board of Revenue was erred in law to decide the revision petition in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts in the aforesaid judgments i.e.

Rewa Mahto v. Delu Mahto and others (AIR 1924 Patna 528) and Muthu Bhattar v. Mrithunjaya Bhattar and another (AIR 1918 Madras 295).

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.

5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce grounds of appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Revenue by the respondents to resolve the controversy between the parties:- It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative part of the order of the Additional Commissioner Revenue dated 3-7-1982:-- "The objection of Ghulam Rasul etc plaintiff on the ground of sale price is also not correct because the learned trial Court has fixed the price after thorough enquiry into the matter: However, Rec. No.5080 Killa No.5 consists of 7 Kanals 7 Marlas and it was wrongly written as 7 Kamals, 5 Marlas, This requires amendment. In view of the above discussion. I find that the appeal of Siraj Din etc. has, no force which is accordingly dismissed. The appeal of Ghulam Rasul etc. is accepted to the extent that the impugned decree is modified to the extent that the area of Killa No.5 or Rec No.5080 be read as 7 Kanals,

7. Marlas instead of 7 Kanals, 5 Marlas. The objection of Ghulam Rasul etc. regarding sale price of the land has no force." The sole contention raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner that the respondents bad to the, application, for correction of the Khasra number in question before the trial Court instead of before the Appellate Court on the basis of the judgment relied by the learned counsel of the petitioner:-- Rewa Mahto v. Delu Mahto and others (AIR 1924 Patna 528) and Muthu Bhattar v. Mrithunjaya Bhattar and another (AIR 1918, Madras 295). The relevant observation of Muthti Bhattar Mrithunjaya Bhattar and another (AIR 1918 Madras 295) is reproduced hereunder:-- "This contention must however be rejected, for when the property becomes vested in the Official Receiver, the insolvent must ipso facto be divested of the same; and can have no vested interest in the property until after it is restored to him after administration; Sadodin v. Spiers (1878) 3 Bom. 437, is authority for the proposition that the Official Assignee alone is competent to sue for enforcing the rights to property possessed by an insolvent at the date of adjudication: vide also Ramaswamy Iyengar. v. Ramalinga Mudaliar (AIR 1914 Mad 154 = 22 IC 687) and Ramasami Aiyangar v. Pavadai Chetty (30 Mad. 145), and there is no authority to the contrary." The relevant portion of Rewa Matho v. Delu Mahto and others (AIR 1924 Patna 528) is as under: "There is very high authority for the view that the Court of law has authority over its own record and it may amend the record even after an appeal is brought." The aforesaid judgments relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner did not support the case of the petitioner. In fact the first judgment is not relevant at all, however, in the second judgment, it is observed that the application is also competent before the trial Court. The question of law arises in the present writ petition has been finally decided by the Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court in Muhammad Iqbal Khan v. Musa Khan and 3 others (1992 CLC 400). The relevant observation is as follows:-- "The legal position vis-a-vis exercise of revisional jurisdiction is also on the same lines that as and when the revisional jurisdiction is invoked and both the parties are heard and an order is made on merits, the order of the subordinate Court becomes merged into the order of the revisional Court as in the case of an appellate order. In fact the very C. M. was competent before the Court since the High Court had passed a final decree on merits after hearing the patties with notice and the decrees of the lower Courts had merged into the decree of the High Court. Hence the C.M. for rectification of the decree under section 152 read section 151, C.P.C. was duly competent before the High and was to be disposed of on merits." I am also fortified by the following judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, Karam Din and 2 others v. Allah Ditta and another (1987 CLC 1096). From the above mentioned authorities, it is clear that there is any mistake apparent on the face of the record in the and on that basis any mistake has occurred in the judgment and decree, the same can be corrected by the Court, which has passed the even without amending the pleadings. The learned Member, Board Revenue has decided the controversy between the parties in accordance with justice and equity, therefore, same must be maintained. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court as the petitioner failed to attach the grounds of appeal of the respondents and order of the Additional Commissioner Revenue, dated 3-7-1982, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner. The learned Member, Board of Revenue has given findings of facts against the petitioner after perusing the record and after applying its, independent mind. This Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunal below as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- M. Musaddaq's case (PLD 1973 Lahore 600) and Qaisar Shafi?-Ullah's case (1994 SCMR 859). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has, no merits and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./S-490/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????? Petition dismissed.