1992 PLP 486 (MLD)

Muhammad Shamshir Iqbal Chughtai for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 2nd October, 1991. The petitioner in person once again wanted an adjournment but as he had been shown the same indulgence earlier, and has based his request for further adjourment on the same ground as before, therefore, his request was declined. The petitioner conceded to an answer by the Court that he does not know Urdu or English, therefore, it is futile to grant him adjournments. On the previous date of hearing the adjournment was allowed when he had submitted that either he shall engage a counsel to represent him or further prepare his own brief, but now submitted that he had "no time" to engage a lawyer.

2. However, the petitioner contended that the land in question, in respect of which the respondent No.1, herein, filed the instant suit, was Government property and that, therefore, the said respondent/plaintiff had no right to his "site plan" in respect thereof being sanctioned, and that, therefore, the impugned judgments holding to the contrary were not sustainable in law.

3. The Court has gone through the impugned judgments and come to the conclusion that the same are unexceptionable and do not call for any interference, at this stage. It has been noted that while decreeing the suit and upholding the judgment of the lower Court, the first appellate Court had duly observed that as per section 77(4) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 shall be bound by the provisions of the building bye‑laws or the sanctioned site development scheme, if any, and it had been further clarified that the decree in hand shall not be deemed to have conferred any proprietary rights or to have determined the ownership of the plots to which the proposed building plan relates. It was further taken note of that the present petitioner/defendant No.3 before the trial Court, had been impleaded as a party on the application on 26‑1‑1988, and that the learned trial Court had decreed the suit after recording the findings against the defendants in respect of issues No.1, 2 and 3 and decided the rest of the issues in favour of the plaintiff, holding that under section 77 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1977 the "site‑plan" stood approved after the expiry of 60 days and allowed the relief as prayed for, and that, as pointed out earlier, the judgment of the trial Court was upheld by the first appellate Court, vide its judgment dated 30‑5‑1991.

4. This Court has failed to find out any illegality or material irregularity or an error of jurisdiction in respect of the impugned judgments, and that therefore, the same do not call for any interference under the revisional jurisdiction.

5. Here, it is once again reiterated that the petitioner being illiterate was not in any position to provide assistance to the Court, and that, therefore, the Court had taken pains to satisfy itself whether or not any case is made out as contended in the present petition, and that the Court had come to the conclusion to the contrary as stated above.

6. Therefore, the present civil revision petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M‑176/L. ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.