1989 PLP 3520 (MLD)

2. The facts leading to this petition, briefly, are that on 23‑9‑1976 Ghulam Mustafa, Ghulam Murtaza and Nazir Hussain petitioners filed suit for possession by pre‑emption of land measuring 100 Kanals situate in Chak No. 60/D.B., Tehsil Yazman, District Bahawalpur on the basis of being tenants over the suit land, before Collector/A.C., Sub‑Division, Bahawalpur. The suit was resisted and as many as 6 issues were framed. The parties led evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit on 14‑12‑1981. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Mst. Ghulam Fatima, respondent No. 3 filed appeal before the learned Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, which was dismissed on 11‑5‑1982. On this she filed revision before the learned Member, Board of Revenue, who accepted the revision on 12‑3‑1983 with the observation that: "The revision, is therefore, accepted, the orders of the lower Court are set aside and the case is remanded for fresh decision after taking into consideration any written evidence that the petitioner has offered to produce." On this, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 283/83‑BWP, against the order dated 12‑3‑1983 of the learned Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore. The writ petition was disposed of on 21‑2‑1984 with the observation that: "(i) ................................... (ii) The Commissioner may decide the appeal pending with him. (iii) If the Commissioner decides the appeal against the petitioners, the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge his order, dated the 12th March, 1983, passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab." The case which had been remanded by the learned Member, Board of Revenue was entrusted to the learned A.C./Collector, Sub‑Division, Bahawalpur, who after recording additional evidence through Commission, dismissed the suit on 15‑11‑1984, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since no application for permission to produce additional evidence was given under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. by Mst. Ghulam Fatima, therefore, the learned Member, Board of Revenue could not have remanded the case for the purpose of considering documentary evidence, which she had offered to produce; that the A.C./Collector had permitted Mst. Ghulam Fatima respondent to produce unregistered lease agreement and 4 witnesses as additional evidence without any justification; that the suit land was situate in Tehsil Yazman, therefore, the A.C./Collector, respondent No. 2, had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the suit and that the findings of the learned A.C./Collector, respondent No. 2 are based on misreading of evidence. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this petition.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has not been able to point out any misreading/non‑reading of evidence by the learned Member, Board of Revenue, respondent No. 1, or by the learned A.C./Collector, Sub‑Division, Bahawalpur, respondent No. 2; that on remand the case was entrusted to the A.C./Collector, respondent No. 2, by the learned Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur Sub -Division, who was quite competent to transfer the same from any Court to the Court of A.C./Collector, respondent No. 2; that the learned Member, Board of Revenue was quite competent to transfer the same from' any Court to the Court of A.C./Collector, respondent No. 2; that the learned Member, Board of Revenue was quite competent to accept the revision and send back the case with the direction to record documentary evidence, which may be produced by the parties, even without any written application in this behalf; that on remand, the learned A.C./Collector, Bahawalpur, has applied his conscious mind to the relevant evidence and has given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by him and that, neither the learned Member, Board of Revenue nor the learned A.C./Collector, Sub‑Division, Bahawalpur, respondent No. 2, has flouted the provisions of relevant law. The impugned judgments do not suffer from any jurisdictional defect. For what has been said above, I do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned orders of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G‑265/L Petition dismissed.