' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This order shall dispose of C.P. No,288-L of 2003 and C.P. No,294- L of 2003 which petitions filed by the same Abdur Rahman are directed against the same consolidated judgment dated 8-11-2002 passed by the Lahore High Court in C.R. No,1793 of 2000, 1794 of 2000 and 1920 of 2000.
2. One Mst. Hameedan Bibi filed a suit against one Abdur Rahman in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kasur on 9-2-1992 seeking a decree for possession of a shop described therein. She had claimed through the said suit that she was the owner of the shop in dispute by virtue of a sale- deed executed by the Municipal Committee of Kasur in her favor; that the possession of the said suit property had been granted to Abdur Rehman defendant as a licensee on payment of Rs,125 per month and that the said defendant had refused to hand over the possession of the said property back to the plaintiff. Abdur Rahman defendant i,e, the petitioner before us filed a written statement pleading therein that the suit property stood declared as Katchi Abadi; that as per the survey List prepared by the Municipal Committee of Kasur he was in occupation of the same and was entitled to the transfer of the said shop; that the sale and transfer of the same to Mst.
Hameedan Bibi plaintiff by the Municipal Committee of Kasur was illegal, void and ineffective qua his rights and that in the circumstances the suit filed by Mst. Hameedan Bibi was liable to be dismissed. He had, however, also mentioned in the said written statement that Mst. Hameedan Bibi plaintiff was owner only of a dwelling house through the sale-deed dated 28-9-1991 and that she was not the owner of the shop in question.
3. More than a year after the filing of the said suit by Mst. Hameedan Bibi, the above-mentioned Abdur Rahman, defendant of the said suit, filed a suit of his own on 26-4-1993 against the Director- General of Katchi Abadis Punjab, Lahore, the Municipal Committee of Kasur, the Chief Officer of Municipal Committee Kasur, the Deputy Commissioner of Kasur and Mst. Hameedan Bibi, praying for a declaration that he was the one who was entitled to the transfer of the shop in dispute under the Katchi Abadi Scheme after cancellation of the sale-deed, dated 3-2-1992 executed by the Municipal Committee Kasur in favor of Mst. Hameedan Bibi which sale-deed had been secured by her through fraud and misrepresentation and which sale-deed did not affect his rights vis-a-vis the said shop.
4. Both these suits i,e, the one filed by Mst. Hameedan Bibi against Abdur Rahman and the other filed by Abdur Rahman against Mst. Hameedan Bibi and others were dismissed by a learned Civil Judge at Kasur through a consolidated judgment, dated 26-10-1996.
5. The suit filed by Abdur Rahman had been dismissed essentially on the ground that the Civil Court was not the forum which could grant proprietary rights to Abdur Rahman under the Katchi Abadis Scheme nor could the Civil Court compel the competent authorities to transfer the said property to him.
6. In the suit filed by Mst. Hameedan Bibi, it was held under Issue Nol. That the sale/transfer of the suit shop in favor of Mst. Hameedan Bibi was not wrong, illegal, void, without jurisdiction and ineffective on the rights of Abdur Rahman. Despite this finding of the trial Court, the suit was dismissed on the ground that Mst. Hameedan Bibi had not been able to establish that the shop in dispute was the same property which had been transferred/sold to her by the Municipal Committee through the sale-deed in question.
7. This led both the parties i,e, Mst. Hameedan Bibi and Abdur Rahman to the filing of appeals before the learned District Judge which appeals were disposed of by a learned Additional District Judge at Kasur through his single judgment, dated 15-5-2000.
8. In the matter of the suit filed by Abdur Rahman the said Appellate Court confirmed the dismissal of the said suit by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the reasons which had weighed with the learned trial Judge in dismissing the said suit were not open to any exception. However, the appeal filed by Mst. Hameedan Bibi was partly allowed inasmuch as the said Appellate Court granted a declaration that she was the owner of the shop in dispute but dismissed her suit to the extent of delivery of possession to her by finding that Abdur Rahman had attained the status of a tenant in the shop in question and that Mst. Hameedan Bibi should approach the Rent Controller for seeking his ejectment from the said shop. It may be added here that it was after noticing the plea of Abdur Rahman taken through his written statement and after examining the entire evidence available on record that the learned Additional District Judge had come to the conclusion that no confusion whatsoever existed vis-a-vis the identity of the shop in question and that the suit shop was the same property which had been transferred/sold to her by the Municipal Committee of Kasur.
9. Both the parties again questioned this appellate judgment before the Lahore High Court through the above-mentioned civil revisions which culminated in the judgment of the Lahore High Court which is being impugned before us.
10. Through this impugned judgment the High Court had dismissed the revision petitions bearing Nos.1793 and 1794 of 2000 filed by Abdur Rahman while the Civil Revision bearing No,1920 of 2000 filed by Mst. Hameedan was accepted as a result whereof she was also granted a decree for possession of the property in question.
11. As has been noticed above, it had been found as a fact even by the learned trial Judge while deciding issue No,1 that the sale/transfer of the suit shop in favor of Mst. Hameedan Bibi was not wrong, illegal or ineffective upon the rights of Abdur Rahman. Despite this finding the learned trial Judge dismissed Mst. Hameedan Bibi's suit on the ground that it could not be shown to him that the description of the shop in question as given in the plaint was the same which stood mentioned in the sale-deed in question executed by the Municipal Committee of Kasur in her favor. The learned Appellate Judge i,e, a learned Additional District Judge at Kasur examined the pleadings of the parties especially the plea taken by Abdur Rahman through his written statement, the sale- deed in question and other evidence led by the parties and after a detailed inquiry reached the conclusion that the suit shop was the same property which had been sold/transferred to Mst.
Hameedan Bibi through the relevant sale-deed. This finding of fact was further confirmed, after a detailed discussion, by the Honourable High Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner who has been heard at some length, could not show that the said concurrent findings of fact were the result of any misreading of the available evidence or that the same had emanated from non-reading of any evidence available on record. Thus, the question of the identity of the suit property as resolved by the learned Appellate and the Honourable Revisional Court do not admit of any interference by this Court.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner next argued and rather vehemently that the High Court was not justified in granting a decree to Mst. Hameedan Bibi for possession of the suit shop and that she should have been left to approach the Rent Controller for the purpose as found by the Appellate Court. We have given some thought to this issue and find that even on this question the decision of the Honourable High Court was unexceptionable. The matter has been in litigation for more than a decade and at this stage compelling the lady-plaintiff to start afresh a round of litigation and thus, encouraging multiplicity of litigation and misery of the parties was not in the best interest of justice especially when this Court is under an obligation to do complete justice. In reaching this conclusion we are fortified by the view taken by this Court in the case of Province of Punjab and another v. Mufti Abdul Ghani which is reported as PLD 1985 SC 1.
13. In this view of the matter, both these petitions are dismissed and leave refused.