1989 PLP 1876 (SCMR)

JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18th June, 1983 whereby the civil revision of the petitioners was dismissed. Briefly tile facts are that a suit was brought by the respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest namely Slier Muhammad against the petitioners for possession of the disputed land and for a declaration that mutation in respect of the same was without consideration and ineffective on his rights in the said land is also prayed for the grant of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from acting upon the said mutation. The suit was eventually decreed by the trial Court. The appeal of the petitioners was dismissed and subsequently their civil revision was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. Hence the present petition, It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners before us that the disputed land was mortgaged by the said Sher Muhammad in favour of petitioner No. 1 against Rs.4,000 in 1967 for a period of eight years vide Mutation No.

525. Thereafter in 1968 a mutation was sanctioned showing that the said land was sold by Sher Muhammad to the petitioners for Rs. 20,

000. It was this mutation which was lost and then reconstructed and sanctioned on 8th February, 1978 under the order of the Collector. However, Sher Muhammad earlier filed a suit in forma pauperis for possession of the said land and also challenged the validity of the said mutation of 1968. The trial Court refused to grant him the permission to sue as a pauper and directed that he should pay the court‑fee, but the said Slier Muhammad failed to comply with this direction and hence his application was rejected on 17th May, 1971. However it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the suit was brought by Sher Muhammad (who died during the pendency of the litigation, and was succeeded by the respondents) on 28th February 1978 again in forma pauperis. The argument of the learned counsel is that the fresh suit in forma pauper" when the previous one had been dismissed, could not be brought under the C P C, and that therefore the respondents should have been non‑suited throughout. We have considered this technical objection raised by learned counsel but so far His the findings of fact are concerned in this case the evidence is to the effect that no sale took place and that the consideration was also not paid to the deceased Sher Muhammad. These concurrent findings of fact in this behalf had been recorded by the Courts below and could rightly not be disturbed in revision. After hearing learned counsel and going through the impugned orders in our view it is not a fit case for the grant of leave. The petition is therefore dismissed. M.A.K./M‑823/S Petition dismissed.