P L D 1988 Lahore 625 (PLP)

Sale of 54 Kanals 18 Marlas of agricultural land situated in Chak No.500/G.B., Tehsil Shorkot made in favour of the petitioners by means of Mutation No.921 sanctioned on 15‑5‑1979 for an ostensible price of Rs.41,785 was sued out on 6‑1‑1980 to be pre‑empted by the petitioner, a Christian, on the ground, inter alia, of being a co‑sharer. The suit was contested and set down to be tried on a total of 11 issues including the relief whereof issue No.8 related to the superior right. On the basis of copy of Jamabandi relating to the year 1974‑75 (Exh.P.2) trial Court found that the plaintiff is a co‑sharer with the vendor and has, as such, got a superior right of pre‑emption and since the sale price was admitted by the plaintiff to be correct, therefore, by its judgment dated 22‑7‑1987 trial Court decreed the suit in favour of The plaintiff‑respondent upon payment ,of Rs.41,785 (sale price) + Rs.9,755 as the cost of improvements).

2. An appeal thereagainst filed by the vendees, was heard by a learned Additional District Judge before whom trial Court's finding under issue No.6 relating to cost of improvements was not contested. He reconsidered the evidence and upon ‑affirming the findings of the trial Court on all the issues dismissed the appeal by upholding the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by means of his judgment dated 26‑5‑1988.

3. The vendees have now come up to this court on revision but have not produced either a copy of the evidence led in the suit or of the documents exhibited there to meet the requirements of the Proviso to subsection (1) of section 115 of the C.P,C. Actually, in the absence of these copies, not only the revision‑petition itself becomes liable to be treated as imperfectly constituted but also there does not remain available any conceivable argument capable of being raised on the remaining record for inviting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is further, enjoined by the said Proviso that, except for reasons to be recorded, the High Court shall dispose of the revision petition without sending for the record of the Court below and there is no reason shown for summoning the record of the trial Court. Hence, the only disposal of this revision petition that can be made on the basis of the present record cannot be anywise else than dismissing it as unsubstantiated.

4. This revision petition seems to have been frivolously maintained by the counsel for the sake merely of maintaining it. I wish the law had empowered me to award at the limine stage of dismissal an appropriate amount of compensation to the Exchequer for waste of time of this Court and also of that of the appellate Court below, in addition to being able to suitably reimburse the litigant who does not have any case at all to urge in the High Court and is yet lured into filing proceedings not worth even the papers that they are drawn on.

5. Learned Judge in the appeal below has specifically mentioned at two different places that certain issues/points have not been argued before him and there is no affidavit filed to even assert the contrary. No argument has been made even before me beyond saying that this case could not have been decreed after 31‑7‑1986, the date fixed In Said Kamal's case but this being a suit maintained on the basis of the plaintiff's right as a co‑sharer under section 15 of the Punjab L Pre‑emption Act, 1913, there is no legal bar in its having been decreed and upheld below on the stated dates.

6. There is no substance in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. M.B.A./A‑391/L Petition dismissed.