2001 SCMR 1576 (PLP)

Date of hearing: 11th February, 1998. MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.‑‑‑Petitioner Muhammad Naeem seeks leave to appeal against a judgment dated 12‑9‑1997 by High Court of Sindh in Civil Revision No.323 of 1994. The plot in litigation bearing No. 16/9/A 'B' Area, Liaquatabad, measuring 80 sq.yds. was allotted in name of "M.A. Rahim". The petitioner who has throughout been called as "Muhammad Naeem" claimed, his other name to be "M.A. Rahim", and to be allottee of the suit plot from the Refugee and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Government of Pakistan. On 16‑5‑1981 the petitioner filed Suit No.2066 of 1981 for a declaration that he was lawful allottee/owner of the house built on plot in suit. for cancellation of the registered sale‑deed dated 19‑3‑1981 executed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in favour of his brother Muhammad Inamur Rehman respondent No. 1, for possession of the suit property and for issue of perpetual injunction restraining respondent No. l from alienating the suit property. Case of the petitioner was that after allotment of said plot in 1956 he raised temporary construction and shifted there with his mother and two brothers, namely, Muhammad Inamur Rahim and Muhammad Abdul Malik (now dead). Ultimately in 1964 a Pucca house was constructed by the petitioner, as claimed by him but his brother Abdul Haleem left the house, while respondent Muhammad Inamur Rahim Daftari in the High Court of Sindh since 1969 continued to remain there as a licensee. Petitioner added that in 1975 he remarried after his marriage with his first wife was dissolved in 1966 and thereafter he shifted to a rented house leaving the suit house with his brother. Subsequently disputes arose between the brothers when the respondent No. 1 allegedly misbehaved with the petitioner and thereafter the respondent No. I shifted to the house of his in‑laws in SITE Area after locking his room in the suit house. Notice dated 3‑3‑1981 about termination of licence was sent to the respondent No. 1 who managed with respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and obtained lease deed in his name on 19‑3‑1981 and the same was got registered and then the notice was replied on 6‑4‑1981. The suit house was attached under orders of SDM, Liaquatabad, where a case registered on F. I. R. of respondent No. l was sent. Hence the suit. The suit was contested by the respondent who filed written statement, The Trial Court framed issues about maintainability of the suit, about valuation and on merits. Under a judgment dated 18‑1‑1993 the Trial Court dismissed the suit, after taking the view inter alia that the petitioner was not being called by the name of M.A. Rahim. The petitioner challenged dismissal of his suit under Civil Appeal No.54 of 1993, but the same was dismissed on 10‑7‑1994 by an Additional District Judge. Learned A.D.J. took view that the petitioner had failed to establish his contention that his other name was M.A. Rahim. The petitioner took the matter to the High Court under Civil Revision No.323 of 1994. Under the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the Revision after taking view that the petitioner had not produced any oral or documentary evidence that his name was M.A. Rahim or that the allotment of the suit property was obtained by him in such name. Hence this petition. Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the matter required to be remanded to the trial Court because the evidence led by the petitioner had not been properly appreciated by all the Courts below. However, learned counsel could not point out any evidence, which was not considered by any of the Courts below. He failed to point out any misreading on non‑reading of evidence by any of the Courts below. The evidence adduced by the petitioner has been appraised by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court. Even the High Court has considered in detail the evidence adduced by the petitioner in the following words:‑‑ The documents which were filed alongwith the plaint have now been submitted, in original, alongwith the written arguments filed by the applicant. I have gone through the documents and find that none of the documents establishes the case of the applicant or renders the impugned judgments erroneous on facts or in law. The documents show that application for allotment was made in the name of M.A. Rahim and electricity connection at the subject property was also provided in the name of Abdul Raheem. However, the same does not prove that the applicant was known as Muhammad Abdul Rahim (M.A.‑ Rahim) or had obtained allotment in such name. " The High Court took view that the finding, contained in the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court, to the effect that the petitioner had failed to show that he was known as M.A, Rahim or had initiated correspondence for seeking allotment in the said name, was not dislodged by the documents produced by the petitioner with his written arguments. In our view the case has been properly dealt with by all the Courts B below and there is no misreading or non‑reading of evidence, which appears to have been properly appreciated and discussed. No case is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and this petition stands dismissed H.B.T./M‑258/5 Petition dismissed.