2021 PLP 1798 (CLC)

CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.

Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order and decree dated 21.12.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Gujrat whereby suit for declaration along with consequential relief filed by the petitioner was dismissed on Oath Holy Quran and judgment and decree dated 13.02.2016 passed by the learned District Judge, Gujrat dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for declaration along with consequential relief against the respondents / defendants alleging therein that Mutation Nos.2804 and 2805 dated 31.08.1999 are result of forgery which are against the law and facts etc. Respondent appeared and filed contesting written statement stating therein that he paid all the consideration and the petitioner / plaintiff from his own free will transferred the suit property to him, as such, no fraud has been committed. Issues were framed and evidence was recorded and the case was fixed for final arguments. The plaintiff along with his learned counsel appeared before the learned trial court on 21.12.2012 and got recorded his statement for decision of the case on oath. Offer was accepted and oath was taken or sworn and on his statement, the learned trial court vide order and decree dated 21.12.2012 dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the leaned District Judge, Gujrat vide judgment and decree dated 13.02.2016. Hence, this civil revision.

3. Heard. Statements of the petitioner, Liaqat Ali and order dated 21.12.2012 passed by the learned trial court are as under:- From perusal of statements reproduced above the petitioner/plaintiff himself appeared before the learned trial court on 21.12.2012 along with his learned counsel and got recorded his statement stating that if one Liaqat Ali son of Muhammad Akbar (real brother of defendant No.1) gave Oath on Holy Quran that plaintiff had received consideration and executed Mutations Nos.2804 and 2805 dated 31.08.1999 in favour of defendant No.1 then his suit would be dismissed otherwise suit be decreed. The said offer was accepted and said Liaqat Ali appeared and sworn Oath on Holy Quran that the petitioner / plaintiff received total consideration of the suit property before the revenue officials and he himself got entered and sanctioned the mutations, as such, no fraud has been committed by defendant No.1. The plaintiff imposed his thumb impression by mentioning his identity card as well as his learned counsel identified him and special attorney of defendant No.1 also appeared who imposed his thumb impression and signed the same whereas Liaqat Ali putting his signature in the presence of the learned counsel for both the parties before the learned trial court. The presumption of truth is attached to the judicial record. Reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Ramzan v. Lahore Development Authority, Lahore (2002 SCMR 1336), Fayyaz Hussain v. Akbar Hussain and others (2004 SCMR 964) and Waqar Jalal Ansari v. National Bank of Pakistan and another (2008 SCMR 1611). Admittedly the matter was decided on special oath with the consent of the parties. Under Section 96(3), C.P.C., no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with the consent of parties, as such, learned courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments and decrees and no illegality has been committed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality or material irregularity, mis-reading and non-reading of evidence in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and has also not identified any jurisdictional defect. The concurrent findings of fact are against the petitioner which do not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction in absence of any illegality or any other error of jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on the cases of Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali (2006 SCMR 1304), Rashid Ahmad v. Said Ahmad (2007 SCMR 926), Asmatullah v. Amanat Ullah through LRs (PLD 2008 SC 155) and Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469).

7. In view of the above, this civil revision is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits with no order as to costs. SA/M-5/L Revision dismissed.