1984 PLP 1181 (CLC)

‑‑‑ O. XLVII, r. 1‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 52‑‑Review ‑ Mutation proceedings‑Contention that mutation was never sanctioned by petitioner and that since no sanctity is attached to mutation proceedings factum of re‑transfer has to be proved by some evidence other than mutation, held, no ground for review ‑ Mutation proceedings though not conclusive proof of transaction mentioned therein but at same time presumption of correctness is attached to such proceedings which of course is rebuttable. This is an application for review of the judgment of this Court dated 12‑6‑1982 whereby C. R. No. 211 of 1982 filed by Haji Aziz Muhammad petitioner against Haji Jan Muhammad respondent was dismissed.

2. Since this is a review petition, I need not repeat the facts of the case and as such the facts of the case given in para. No. 1 of the judgment dated 12‑6‑1982 sought to the reviewed may be read as part of this judgment. (i) That it was wrongly stated by the learned counsel for the res pondent at the time of arguments in civil revision that mutation No. 175, dated 13‑3‑1981, whereby, the petitioner allegedly re transferred the land given by him in exchange to respondent, to Muhammad Ismail and the same bears the signatures of the peti tioner, inasmuch as mutation No. 175, dated 13‑3‑1981 does not bear the signatures of Haji Aziz Muhammad petitioner. (ii) That mutation No. 175 was never got sanctioned by Haji Aziz Muhammad and that since no sanctity is attached to the mutation proceedings, the factum of retransfer has to be proved by some evidence other than mutation No. 175. (iii) That since the petitioner has performed the part of his contract that he has given one piece of plot situated in Rajanpur and a piece of land situated in Gabol Jagir to Haji Jan Muhammad respondent in lieu of the suit land, therefore, his possession over the suit land has to be protected under section 53‑A of the Transfer of Property Act by issuing temporary injunction in his favour.

4. Since this is a review application, it would be convenient to quote the relevant provisions of law; (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is .allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (e) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who; from the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced‑ by him at time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. Rule 4‑(1) Where it appears to the Court that there is not sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application. (2) Where the Court is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same Provided that‑‑ (a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite‑party, to enable him to appear and be heard in support of the decree or order, a review of which is applied for ; and‑ . (b) no such application shall be granted on the .ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge, or could not be adduced by him when the decree or order was passed or made, without strict proof of such allegation:"

5. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. in the light of the abovestated provisions of law, I am of the opinion that no case for review of judgment is made out inasmuch as there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record ; that from the judg ment sought to be reviewed it appears that the Court was not influenced by the contention of the learned counsel that mutation No. 175, dated 13‑3‑1981 bears the signatures of Haji Aziz Muhammad petitioner. It was only a contention of the learned counsel and nothing more and nothing less. The Court has clearly stated that : "the petitioner had prima facie, transferred the land situated, in Mauza Gabol Jagir which he had allegedly given to Haji Jan Muhammad in exchange of the suit land and as such the very foundation of his entitlement to the suit land having been demolished. It cannot be said that he has a prima facie or an arguable case." As for ground No. 2, there is no doubt that mutation proceedings are not the conclusive proof of the transaction mentioned therein but at the same time presumption of correctness is attached to these proceedings which of course is rebuttable. Be that as it may, this is not a ground at all for the review of a judgment. As for ground No. 3, since there is mutation No. 175, dated 13‑3‑1981 which shows that the petitioner has retransferred the land given by him to Haji Jan Muhammad in lieu of the suit land, therefore, prima facie, it cannot be said that the petitioner has performed part of his contract. Even otherwise, it is not a sufficient ground for review.

6. For what has been stated above, there being no merit in this application, the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. N. A. K. Application dismissed.