2004 PLP 1529 (CLC)

Tahir Hussain Lughmani for Respondents Nos. l to

5. Malik Mehmood Akhtar for Respondents Nos.6 to

8. Masud-ur-Rehman Awan for Respondents Nos. 18 to 27 Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2004. This petition calls into question the judgments and decrees dated 13-2-1992 of the trial Judge and dated 17-7-1996 of the appeal Court wherein suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed to the extent determined therein. Arguments heard record perused.

2. Facts in details need not be reproduced, suffice it to say that Samandar Khan respondent/plaintiff brought a suit seeking decree of title in the suit-land, the setting aside of the correction Mutation No. 15, dated 29-4-1968 and in the alterative also sought decree for possession in respect of the suit-land. The same was contested by the petitioners and after holding trial it was decreed to the extent indicated to the impugned judgment and the decree, and judgment were maintained by the appeal Court.

3. It was contended for the petitioners that the decision of the F. C. R. Court based on compromise of the parties has no binding effects because the same was neither between all the parties to the present list nor it covers the entire 'property and that it has come on record particularly in the written statement that some of the property particularly the two Khasra Nos. namely, 1675 and 1692 was not ancestral property, therefore, could not be included for the purpose of division amongst the parties.

4. Not only in the written statement but also in the evidence and even in the memo of appeal such plea was not taken in any manner whatsoever, therefore, this plea cannot, be allowed to be raised at revisional stage before this Court in, view of the legal bar that a party to a lis is bound by its pleadings and cannot make a departure from it.

5. The next submission was that the order of the Settlement Tehsildar making correction in the Revenue Record was based on proper inquiry and, therefore, not be set aside so lightly as has been done by the learned two Courts below. This submission is also not tenable because according to D. W. 1 Zareef Khan who appeared as attorney for the other sets of the defendants in his statement at page 22 squarely admitted that there were proceedings pending between the parties to the suit before the F.C.R. Tribunal and that the decision was rendered to that effect on the basis of compromise. This admission is of a nature watch leave behind nothing to be debated upon and during the settlement of 1966-67 the settlement authorities after proper inquiry and on the basis of the decision of the F.C.R. Tribunal made entries in the Revenue Record to that effect therefore, very strong evidence was required to annul the sanctity of the same but the Settlement Tehsildar without any fresh evidence to the contrary gave decision in entire vacuum which has no foundation or basis whatsoever.

6. Apart the above, both the learned Courts below have taken into consideration the entire evidence both oral and documentary recorded and brought by the parties on file and after fairly attending to the same have made its appraisal in accordance with law and have drawn fair conclusion therefrom which are not susceptible to the revisional jurisdiction of this Court moreso when no illegality or irregularity causing miscarriage of justice has been pointed out. This being the legal and factual position and this Court in its limited jurisdiction would not interfere into the concurrent findings thus recorded by the learned two Courts below hence this petition being devoid of legal merits is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./147/P Revision petition dismissed.