2008 PLP 428 (SCMR)

SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, J.

These civil petitions have been filed against the consolidated judgment of Sindh High Court, Karachi, dated 19-12-2006 in Civil Revisions Nos.47 of 1995 and 256 of 2002.

2. The dispute is with regard to plots of land measuring 225 sq. meters and 370 sq. meters area (situated at Timber Pond, Kemari, Fish Harbour, West Wharf, Karachi) (hereinafter referred to as the "demised plots"). One of the two demised plots was temporarily allotted to the petitioner for carrying out business on payment of Rs.21,400 subject to the sanction by Karachi Port Trust Board. During the course of time the petitioner was dispossessed from the plot as temporary and conditional permission was cancelled/rescinded by the Karachi Port Trust which led the petitioner to file suits for specific performance under section 42 of Specific Relief Act for declaration to the effect he was legally entitled one of the two plots in question. The said suits were decreed of the trial Court were dismissed. Respondent assailed the concurrent findings of the trial and Appellate Courts before the High Court by way of revisions in respect of two plots. High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction after going through the material on record and hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner had failed to establish any vested right in respect of the demised plots and his suits for declaration under section 42 of Specific Relief Act were not maintainable. The document relied upon by him in support of his entitlement for allotment is the order conferring a right on the petitioner to use the demised plot(s) as a licensee and. a licence neither confers any vested right in the licensee nor a licensee can claim its continuation for an unlimited period of time as the same is revocable. It is further observed that both the trial Court and Appellate Court had failed to take into consideration very material facts and provision of law which resulted in grave and serious illegalities being committed by them in decreeing the suits by the trial Court and subsequently, by confirmation thereof by the Appellate Court. On the above views High Court found that the suits were not maintainable and set aside the judgment and decrees of the Appellate Court and trial Court ordering dismissal of the suits.

3. We asked Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record to show us any document from which it could be established that the petitioner had acquired a vested right in respect of the demised plot(s) which was necessary for filing a suit for declaration of title/ownership in respect of the immovable property under, section 42 of Specific Relief Act. He was unable to point out to us any document or material in support of the establishment of vested right. He, however, insisted that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. could not set aside the concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below and in being so the High Court committed grave and serious illegality. The contention advanced by Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned Advocate-on-Record is without any substance. This Court has consistently held that when finding of the facts of the trial and Appellate Courts are contrary to the evidence and material on record or are against law when the revisional Court would have jurisdiction to rectify the same so as to bring the findings in consonance with the evidence on record or to remove the illegality surfacing from the judgment. Similarly if the revisional Court finds any violation of provision of law by a Court or ignorance of law then it is vested with the authority to set aside the concurrent findings and substitute its own findings.

4. For the foregoing facts, reasons and discussion this petition is found to be without any substance and is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused. M.H./M-107/SC Petition dismissed.