2004 PLP 1038 (SCMR)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th May, 2003. TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 23‑10‑2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, accepted Civil Revision No.621/D of 1987 filed by the respondents and restored the determination of the learned trial Court rendered on 3‑3‑1987 whereby the suit for possession filed by them was decreed.

2. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the disputed property was secured by the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents Siraj Din in an open auction from the Settlement Department as far back as in the year 1973 and a P.T.D. for the same was issued. Said Siraj Din filed a suit for possession claiming tire disputed property on the basis of the aforesaid P.T.D. issued by the Settlement Department in his name on successful completion of auction proceedings held in the year 1973. The petitioners denied the claim of the respondent and took up a preliminary objection that the P.T.P. had been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation. It was also averred that the disputed property was not available for allotment as the same was attached to the school. Out of contradictory pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. The parties led their evidence and the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Multan, through his judgment, dated 21‑2‑1983 decreed the suit. On an appeal filed by the petitioners, the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, set aside the judgment of the trial Court and remanded the case to the latter Court by framing an additional issue qua the report of the Local Commissioner. The parties again led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its judgment, dated 3‑3‑1987 decreed the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal assailing the above judgment, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, through his judgment, dated 19‑7‑1987. The respondents filed aforesaid civil revision before the Lahore High Court at Multan Bench, Multan, which has been accepted by a learned Single Judge vide his judgment, dated 23‑10‑2002, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

3. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned Law Officer appearing on behalf of the petitioners and have gone through the entire material placed on record with his assistance. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the allotment of the disputed property through P.T.D. has been admitted by all the Courts below. The issue bearing No.5 framed to the effect, whether the P.T.D. was obtained by the respondent through fraud and misrepresentation, has been answered in the negative. It is pertinent to mention here that till date even the issuance of P.T.D. has not been questioned before any forum and no step whatsoever has been taken by the petitioners to get the same cancelled. The Settlement Department as well as the Revenue forums time and again endorsed the factual controversy that the disputed property claimed by the petitioners was secured by the predecessor‑in -interest of the respondents Siraj Din as far back as in the year 1973. The plea of the petitioners that the property under dispute vests in the petitioners in view of Martial Law Order No.264 is devoid of any force as no issue qua this assertion was framed and the petitioners have not brought any evidence on record to substantiate the same. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has given cogent reasons in restoring the judgment of the trial Court. A factual controversy regarding allotment of the disputed property has been determined by the trial Court which has been maintained by a learned Single Judge of the High Court. As already stated after the allotment of the disputed property in the name of the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents, the Settlement Department demarcated the same in presence of the Incharge of the hostel of the school. The plea of the petitioners that the allotted property was different as compared to the claim made by the respondent has been repelled by the learned Single Judge in the following words:‑‑‑ "Whereas no evidence: was brought by the respondents to show that the suit property was not property No.23 but the same was property No.21 which was transferred to them. In the absence of such evidence, the claim of the petitioners as set out in the plaint was liable to be given an upper edge particularly when they successfully established that the property in possession of the respondents was in fact the property which was owned by their predecessor deceased Siraj Din. It is also noticed that the report Exh.P.4 was prepared by Muhammad Rafique Qureshi an Inspector of the Settlement Department on 18‑11‑1973 whereupon the Deputy Settlement Commissioner passed the following order on 27‑12‑1973:‑‑ "Demarcation be arranged through the Revenue Patwari in the presence of the transferee as well as the Incharge of the hostel." Pursuant to it, demarcation was conducted in the presence of the parties. At that time no objection was taken regarding such proceedings. It cannot be ignored that even before the Secretary Baldiya, Jalalpur Pirwala before whom the proceedings were being held regarding sanctioning of a house on the demised premises, respondents failed to bring any evidence in support of their claim. Reference may be made to Exh. P.6." Learned Law Officer has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. S.A.K./P‑10/S Leave refused.