2008 PLP 26 (YLR)

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

On 11-10-1978 Abdul Ghani, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 4 and Jamal Din respondent No.5 filed a suit against the petitioners and the remaining respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the suit plot was allotted to the said plaintiffs and a PTO had been issued. However, the respondent No.6 proceeded to execute the sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 and late father of respondent No.2 on 7-12-1977 in respect of the said plot whereas she had got nothing to do with the same. A declaration was accordingly sought and possession was also prayed for. The said defendants filed their written statements. The plea taken was that the said plot had been validly transferred by the said lady in their favour. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 20-3-1985. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned ADJ, M.B. Din, on 23-4-1996. This civil revision was earlier allowed ex parte on 22-4-2002 which ex parte decree was set aside vide order dated 6-9-2004 in C.M. No.1136/03.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner No.1 appeared as D.W.1 and stated that the plot in their possession is located in Khasra No.105 but he was not cross-examined and as such the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be interfered with. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned concurrent judgments and decrees.

3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already noted above the material contents of the pleadings of the parties. Whereas the said plaintiff's categorically stated that they are the transferees of plot No.7/343 with reference to the transfer documents and that Khurshid Alam defendant/department had sold the said land to the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 7-12-1977; in the written statement, there is no such plea at all that the land purchased by the vendees is located in some other numbers. On the other hand, it has been stated that the suit land had been correctly transferred to them by the said vendor. Abdul Ghani, the deceased plaintiff appeared as P.W. 1 and categorically stated that the plot bears No.7/343 and has been transferred to them and that this has been transferred by Khurshid Bibi to the petitioners. Not a single question was put to him to challenge the said statement. There was no suggestion that the plot bears some other Khasra number.

4. It is true that Bashir Ahmad petitioner appeared as D.W. 1 and proceeded to make the said statement but nothing turns on the same. The reason being that it is a well entrenched proposition that no party would be allowed to lead evidence in the absence of a plea. Apart from this whereas the contesting respondents had placed on record the entire documentary evidence regarding the plot transferred to them, there is nothing on record that Khurshid Begum, the vendor of the petitioners, in fact, owned some plot in Khasra No.105. In fact, the petitioners have not even produced the sale deed stating to have been executed by the said vendor in their favour. All the said documents have been examined by me and I do not find any mis-reading thereof by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs. F.B./B-35/L Petition dismissed.