1998 PLP 1398 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, J.

The above petition is directed against the judgment dated 6-3-1996 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.1283-D of 1994, filed by the petitioners against the judgment/decree dated 29-9-1994 of the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, reversing the judgment/decree dated 11-11-1992 of the learned Civil Judge, Multan, decreeing the petitioners' suit for declaration and cancellation of the mutations referred to in the body of the plaint, dismissing the same. by maintaining the above appellate judgment/decree.

2. The relevant facts are that the petitioners, who were the owners in possession of agricultural land measuring 126 Kanals situated in Mauza Bheni, Multan, allegedly exchanged the same with the respondent's land measuring 120 Kanals situated in Chak No.115/M.L, Tehsil Karor, District Layyah, under Mutations Nos. 1093 attested on 30-10-1983 and No.44 attested on 16-10-1983. The petitioners filed the aforesaid suit on 4-5-1985 to obtain a declaration to the effect that they were the owners in possession of the above land situated in Mauza Bheni and that the respondent had no concern with it. A declaration was also sought that the above mutations were collusive and null and void. The aforementioned suit was contested by the respondent inasmuch as a written statement ~ was filed. The learned Civil Judge framed as many as nine issues. After recording evidence and hearing the parties he decreed the suit by his above judgment/decree dated 11-11-1.992, against which the respondent filed-Civil Appeal No.93/13 of 1994, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, through his aforementioned judgment/decree dated 29-9-1994. Against the above judgment the petitioners filed aforesaid civil revision, which has been dismissed through the impugned judgment. They have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above petition Mr. Muhammad Ghani, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, has vehemently urged that the courts below have misread. the evidence on record inasmuch as it has been concluded that the mutation effected in favour of the petitioners' mother for transferring the remaining agricultural land belonging to the petitioners on the same day when the above alleged exchange transaction had taken place was not challenged by the petitioners, which is factually incorrect. He has invited our attention to a copy of the plaint of the suit filed by the petitioners against their mother on 11-11-1984 (at page 291 of the paper book), her written statement (at page 298 of the paper book), and the consent decree (at page 260 of the paper book). He has further submitted that originally the respondents case in the written statement was not that in addition to the exchange of his land he had paid Rs.4,00,000 to the petitioners, but subsequently he amended his written statement when he found that it would be unbelievable that the petitioners would have exchanged their more valuable land with the respondent's land which is of less value.

4. We are inclined to grant leave to consider, as to whether the learned Additional District Judge was justified in reversing the decree on the basis of material on record and whether the High Court acted legally by not interfering with the above appellate judgment/decreed. Leave is, accordingly, granted. Both the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit land. M.B.A./M-97/S Leave granted.