SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J. --- Facts narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, was the owner of the suit property who appointed Respondent No. 1 as her general attorney qua the suit property through a registered-deed dated 1.7.1978. The said power-of-attorney was subsequently cancelled by the petitioner on 24.4.1983.
Respondent No. 1 transferred the suit property by virtue of gift to his wife/Respondent No. 2.
2. Mst. Aziza Bibi the predecessor of the petitioners, instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that she is the owner of the suit property. The respondents contested the suit by way of filing their respective written statements and raised various preliminary objections.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of tne parties, 10 issues were framed, including the issue as to maintainability of the suit in its present form.
4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 5.6.1991, in the first round of litigation. The Appellate Court by accepting the appeal set aside the judgment and decree vide order dated 14.12.1995, remanded the case with the direction to decide the case afresh. The parties were allowed to seek amendment and adduce additional evidence.
5. The petitioners as well as the respondents did not produce any additional evidence (oral or documentary).
6. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit, after the remand, vide judgment and decree dated 29.9.2001, mainly on the ground that the suit for declaration without seeking the relief of the possession, is not maintainable.
7. The petitioners assailed the decree dated 29.9.2001 in appeal and the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 4.5.2004, wherein the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, was upheld.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that valuable rights of the petitioners, could not be knocked out, on technical grounds and if the petitioners had not claimed the relief of possession, it was open to the Court to allow the petitioners to amend the plaint by adding the prayer for possession. The learned counsel placed his reliance in this respect on "Mst. Arshan Bibi vs. Maula Bakhsh (2003 SCM R 318).
9. The petitioners were provided ample opportunity to amend the plaint but the same was not availed. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed in first round of the litigation on the ground that no relief of possession was sought and the suit for declaration simpliciter is not maintainable. The petitioners even after remand failed to avail the opportunity to amend the suit despite clear direction of learned Appellate Court. The petitioner have not sough amendment in the pleading even at subsequent stage and have thus abandoned the right of possession.
10. The alternate plea of the petitioners, that the suit for declaration without consequential relief of possession, is maintainable is devoid of any merit. The plaintiff is certainly out of possession of the suit property and mere declaration without seeking the possession is not competent. Reliance can be placed in this respect on the cases of "Inayat Ali alias Inayat Hussain and others vs. Muhammad alias Tota and others" (1993 M LD 2367), "Muhammad Yar vs. Mst. Lffat Sultana" (2000 CLJ 369) and "Farmanullah, etc. Vs. Qalandar etc." (2000 CLJ 653).
11. Lastly, this revision petition is preferred against the concurrent findings of two learned Courts and does not call for any interference as the petitioner' counsel had failed to point out any patent error of law, abuse of jurisdiction or arbitrary exercise of powers.
12. For what has been discussed, this revision petition is dismissed in limine.
Civil .