2008 PLP 515 (SCMR)

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

The petitioners seek leave to appeal form judgment dated 16-11-2000 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.86-D of 1977.

2. The petitioners instituted a civil suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against Lal Din, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No.1 and others. It was alleged in the pliant that late Lal Din had entered into an agreement (Exh.P.1) on 24-2-1962 for sale of his land measuring 24 Kanals and 6 Marlas for a consideration of Rs.2,430 out of which he received a sum of Rs.2,100 as earnest money. It was further averred that possession of the suit property was also delivered to the petitioners. In the meantime, late Lal Din executed a general power -of-attorney in favour of her daughter Mst. Ramzan Bibi for the purpose of getting the mutation attested in their favour. But she alienated the suit land by way of sale in favour of her husband Chando vide Mutation No.636, dated 21-3-1962. Therefore, the petitioners filed a suit for declaration that they were the owners in possession of the suit-land and Mutation No.636, dated 21-3-1962 was void. The civil suit of the petitioners was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, by judgment and decree dated 20-1-1971. Their appeal before the Additional District Judge also failed. Therefore, they filed Civil Revision No.86-D of 1977 which was also dismissed by a learned Sessions Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, by the impugned judgment dated 16-1-2000. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners had moved C.M.A. No.814-L of 2005 in this Court with the request to allow them to amend the plaint and to treat the suit for declaration to be for specific performance.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the available record. We find that all the three Courts including the High Court have recorded concurrent findings of fact by holding that sale of the suit land had been validly made by Mst. Ramzan Bibi, General Attorney of Lal Din in favour of Chando vide mutation No.636 attested on 21-3-1962 and that the petitioners were not the owners of the land. The evidence produced by the parties was duly appreciated by the Courts. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would not serve the cause of justice if the petitioners were allowed to amend the plaint and to treat their suit for declaration as suit for specific performance so as to change the complexion and character of the suit. The parties have already been litigating the matter for the last about 37 years. The petitioners called in question the validity of sale of suit land to Chando after 6 years. We do not find any error of law and fact in the impugned judgment. In our opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in C.M.A. No.814-L of 2005 as well as the main petition which are dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. S.A.K./K-6/SC Leave refused.