1979 PLP 239 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J. This is a petition for special leave from the judg ment dated 17th of February, 1976 passed by a learned Judge of the Lahore, High Court at Lahore, whereby he dismissed the Petition No. 959‑R of 1971 filed by the petitioner herein against the respondents. The dispute in this case relates to the residential portion of property bearing No. P‑161, Ward No. 6, Lyallpur (now Faisalabad). On the 21st of December 1959, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner; Lyallpur, transferred the residential portion in question to the petitioner and Barkat Ali respondent No. 3 jointly. The two then entered into an agreement of association on the 2nd of August 1961. The parties are however, at variance about the exact terms of this agreement executed between them. According to the petitioner, there were unauthorised interpolations made into the agreement produced by the respondent by the addition of the words "1/2" share in the property and a clause to the effect that so long as Ibrahim petitioner did not pay the consideration money available in the compensa tion book the agreement of association will remain ineffective. Afterwards respondent No. 3 made an application to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner praying for the revocation of the deed of associa tion on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pay the consideration in accordance with the stipulation in the agreement. But on the 12th of March 1964, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, on going through the documents produced before him held that the agreement of association produced by respondent No. 3 contained the unauthorised interpolations and could not be relied upon. He, therefore, directed that the necessary adjustment should be made in accordance with the agreement of association filed by the petitioner. The order was reversed on appeal of the respondent by the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner Sargodha camp Lyallpur on the 7th of April 1964 but it was restored in revision of the petitioner accepted by the Additional District Judge and Settlement Commissioner, Lyallpur on the 12th of May 1966. The respondent therefore, questioned the validity of this last mentioned order in Writ Petition No. 976‑8 of 1966 which was however, dismissed in limine by a Division Bench of the then High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore on the 16th of November 1967. In this connection the Court observed: "The learned Settlement authorities have proceeded to dismiss the case of the petitioner on the ground that the stipulation, that the agreement of association would become void if the amount is not 1iaid by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner, was not a part of the agreement and had been surreptitiously inserted by the petitioner after the document had been signed. It ‑other words, the petitioner had been guilty of forgery. It is not for this Court to enter into contentious questions of fact like the one involved this case. The petitioner could have sought his remedy in a civil court if one was available to him." Afterwards on the 19th of July 1968, the Deputy Settlement Commis sioner, Lyallpur served a demand notice on the petitioner for the payment of the entire transfer price of the house in dispute. However, after hearing the petitioner and respondent No. 3, on the 5th of August 1968, he observed that the house stood jointly transferred to them and they should therefore, deposit the transfer price in two equal shares. The petitioner went up in appeal against the order. But the Additional Settlement and Rehabilita tion Commissioner, Sargodha Division, Sargodha, on the 22nd of August 1968 rejected the appeal observing that the Settlement Department was bound to give effect to the agreement of association between the parties in its original form excluding the interpolations inserted therein and realise the transfer price from Ibrahim alone. The respondent then went up in revision against the order and on the 25th of March 1969, the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha Division camp at Lyallpur in accepting the revision set aside the appellate order and remanded the case to the Additional Settlement Commissioner for a decision afresh after a detailed enquiry. After the remand, on the 20th of December 1969, the Additional Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sargodha Division camp Lyallpur held as under. "While reading through the agreement of association by deleting the above insertions it is not found that the respondent surrendered rights in favour of the appellant of the share transferred to him. In view of the above position and the observations made by the Settlement Commissioner in his remand order I am inclined to hold that the appellant and the respondent still hold transfer of the house jointly and the agreement of association is restricted only upto the payment of amount of Compensation book. The case is disposed of accordingly." A revision of the petitioner against the order was finally dismissed by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lyallpur, on the 29th of June 1971 with the following observations that:‑ "The original agreement of association which is available on the record has been seen. I find that no additions or alterations have been made by the respondent in the agreement of association. The order passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner therefore is a just order and there is no occasion for me to interfere with the same. In these circumstances the petitioner then filed the Writ Petition No. 959‑R of 1971 against the respondents in the Lahore High Court at Lahore challenging the validity of the order passed by the Settlement Commissioner. But a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petition on 17‑2‑1976. He observed that the Settlement Commis sioner had examined "the original agreement of association which contained no additions and alterations and gave effect to it. In the opinion of the Court thereby the Settlement Commissioner gave effect to the original agreement and not the one which was forged". We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and find that ` this interpretation placed by the learned Judge of the High Court on the revisional order dated 29‑6‑1971 is quite tenable. The learned Settlement Commissioner appears to have based his finding on the agreement of association in its original form admittedly executed between the parties which did not contain any interpolations and the effect was given to it. His order was eminently just and fair and it did not call for any interference in writ jurisdiction by the High Court. Therefore, this petition for special leave has no force and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.