2000 PLP 491 (MLD)

Instant revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 10‑5‑1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur, whereby he confirmed the judgment and decree, dated 15‑5‑1991 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner.

2. Briefly stated the facts are that plaintiff/petitioner claims herself to be owner of land measuring 17 Kanals 1 Marla described fully in para. No.3 of thw plaint. She alleges that she never sold the said land to the respondent vide sale deed, dated 20‑7‑1977 and that the said sale‑deed has been procured by producing some fake lady before the Sub‑Registrar. The defendant/respondent contested the suit wherein he raised various preliminary objections and also controverted the contentions of the plaintiff/petitioner on merits.

3. I From the divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the suit is within time? OPP (2) Whether the suit has been undervalued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction? OPD. (3) If Issue No.2 stands proved then what is the correct valuation of the suit for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction? OPPs. (4) Whether the plaintiff has‑ not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action for the present suit? OPD (6) Whether the suit is barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD (7) Whether the suit is mala fide? If so, whether the defendant is entitled to recover special costs under section 35‑A, C.P.C.? OPD (8) Whether the registered sale‑deed, dated 20‑7‑1977 is illegal, void and based upon fraud'? OPD (9) Relief.

4. In support of her stand plaintiff/petitioner examined P.W.1 Muhammad Yaqoob, P.W.2, Sabir Hussain, P.W.3, Sher Muhammad, S.I. and PWA Muhammad Ramzan, H.C. She also brought on record documents Exhs.P.4 to P.7. The defendant in rebuttal examined himself as D.W.1 and Muhammad Saeed D.W.2 and Bashir Ahmad as D.W.3.

5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment and decree, dated 15‑5‑1991. The plaintiff/petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree filed an appeal which was dismissed on 10‑5‑1999. Hence the instant civil revision.

6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

7. Contention of learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner is that defendant/respondent claims to have purchased the suit property from the plaintiff/petitioner vide sale deed, dated 20‑7‑1977, that the defendant/respondent had not brought on record said original sale‑deed which tell upon his bona fide, that she moved an application before Appellate Court for allowing additional evidence in the form of producing original sale deed and report of Handwriting Expert which was not allowed vide order, dated 11‑10‑1995, that she also moved an application for amendment of the grounds of appeal which also did not find favour with the Appellate Court and was dismissed on 7‑11‑1995, that she also moved an application for comparing the thumb‑impression of plaintiff with her alleged thumb impression on sale deed but the same was not allowed, that the petitioner was a lady so it was incumbent upon the trial Court to allow her said application, that she also moved an application wherein she proposed Issue No.8‑A, whereby ' onus of the same was placed on the defendant/respondent, as it was the duty of the defendant/respondent to prove that he had obtained the land through sale deed which application was also dismissed, that had Issue No.8 been framed as proposed by her and onus placed properly, the findings would have been otherwise. He, thus, submits that all these points need consideration and the revision petition be admitted for regular hearing.

8. A perusal of the record shows that alleged sale deed was executed on 20‑7‑1977 whereas the instant suit has been filed on 14‑12‑1985. It remained pending in the trial Court till 15‑5‑1991. Thereafter the appeal remained pending for about 8 years as the same was dismissed on 10‑5‑1999. During the pendency of the suit in the Civil Court, the plaintiff/petitioner never agitated that the onus of Issue No.8 had not been placed properly and it was during the pendency of appeal that an application for recasting Issue No.8 in the form of 8‑A was moved, 'which was not accepted. The plaintiff/petitioner did not agitate the orders, dated 11‑10‑1995 and 7‑11‑1995 whereby the application for additional. evidence as well as application for amendment of memo. of appeal were rejected. The onus to Drove that sale‑deed, dated 20‑7‑1977 was the result of fraud and mis‑. representation, was on the plaintiff/petitioner. Admittedly the plaintiff/petitioner neither appeared herself nor made any‑effort to cause the production of original sale deed on record which is said to have been in the possession of defendant/respondent. On the other hand the plaintiff/petitioner has examined P.W.3 Sher Muhammad S.‑I. to prove that sale deed does not contain her thumb‑impression. He admits that he was not one of the persons who had examined the said document and prepared the report. The plaintiff/petitioner also did not appear in the Court to controvert the contention of the respondent and to support her contention that she never appeared before the Sub‑Registrar at the time of execution of the sale deed referred above. The trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have fully discussed the evidence which has been brought on record by the parties. The plaintiff/petitioner has failed to prove that she never executed the said sale deed in favour of the defendant/respondent.

9. Be that as it may, section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to cases, involving illegal assumption, non‑exercise or irregular exercise of jurisdiction It cannot be invoked against conclusions of law or fact, which do not in any way, affect the jurisdiction of this Court no matter, however, erroneous, wrong or perverse, the decision might be either on a question of fact or law, unless the decision involves a matter of jurisdiction. As erroneous conclusion of law or fact is liable to be corrected in appeal, but revision will not be competent on such a ground, unless in arriving at such conclusion, an error of law is manifestly shown to have been committed.

10. Neither any such aspect has been put forth or highlighted, nor is seemingly available, so as to attract or entail provisions of section 115, Civil Procedure Code, which, thus, can neither come into play nor press into service. Judgments and decrees, now sought to be impeached and ‑ set at naught are accordingly unexceptionable as the same neither appear to suffer 'from infirmity or any irregularity, what to speak of material irregularity, nor perversity or arbitrariness.

11. Hence viewed from any angle, revision petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./B‑73/L Revision dismissed.