' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the Plot No.16, Block No.6 of Qauidabad, District Khushab was allotted to the petitioner by the competent authority under the provisions of the Thal Development Authority Act, 1949. Consequently Lease Purchase Agreement was also executed and registered between th parties on 30-4-1952, which was cancelled by the respondents vide order, dated 22-12-1959 as the petitioner failed to deposit the dues in terms of the agreement to the respondents and also did not construct the building over the plot inquestion within the prescribed period. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Assistant Director of Housing Department, who finally accepted the appeal of the petitioner vide order, dated 31-12-1979. The petitioner deposited the outstanding of the respondents in terms of order, dated 31-12-1979. Respondent No.2 executed the lease purchase agreement in favour of the petitioner, which was submitted before the Sub-Registrar for registration, who refused to register the same under the direction of the Registrar. The petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Registrar/the then D.C. Under section 77 of the Registration Act, who dismissed the same. The petitioner being aggrieved challenged the vires of the order of Sub-Registrar and Registrar by filing a suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge, Khushab, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 5-12-1993. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the respondents in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Khushab. The contents of the plaint reveals that aforesaid plot was allotted to Feroze Begum and vacant possession of the plot was also handed over to her, which was cancelled by the respondents subsequently, which was restored in her name vide order, dated 31-12-1979. The petitioner has paid all the dues along with the penalty in terms of order, dated 31-12-1979 to the respondents.
' The contents of the plaint reveal that the petitioner/plaintiff sought declaration that she is owner in possession of the plot inquestion and that the respondents/ defendants are duty bound to execute the sale-deed in her favour. As a consequential relief, she prayed for permanent injunction restraining respondents/defendants to cancel the allotment, to interfere in her possession. The Respondents/defendants filed written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint.
Out of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by her words and conduct to file this suit? OPD
(5) Whether the suit has been filed just to harass the defendants and the defendants are entitled to recover special costs under section 35-A, C . P. C . ? OPD
(6) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed plot by virtue of registered purchase agreement, dated 30-4-1952 and order of Assistant Director Housing and Physical Planning Lahore, dated 31-12-1979? OPP
(7) Relief.
' The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 15-11-1995. The petitioner being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Khushab, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 16-10-1999, hence, the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that judgments of both the Courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of the record. The first Appellate Court was erred in law while giving finding against the petitioner that lease purchase agreement was not proved on the record whereas the execution of the same was admitted by the respondents/ defendants in their written statement in reply to para.1 of the plaint. He further urges that both the Courts below have non- suited the petitioner on the ground that Assistant Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department has no lawful authority to hear the appeal of the petitioner and accept the same, which is not in consonance with, the provisions of the Thal Development Authority Act, 1949. The competent authority has delegated the powers to the Assistant Director, Housing and Physical Planning Department under section 81 of the said Act as is evident from the schedule attached by the petitioner along with this revision petition as Annexure-O at page 59 vide Item No.3. He further urges that the petitioner has deposited all the dues of the respondents in terms of the order, dated 31-12-1979, therefore, respondents have no lawful authority to bye-pass the order, dated 31-12-1979.
He further submits that the earlier suit filed by the petitioner is against the order of the Sub- Registrar as well as of the Registrar, who refused to register the lease purchase agreement whereas the present suit was filed by the petitioner for declaration for grant of proprietary rights.
3. The learned counsel of the respondents submits that judgments of both the Courts below are in accordance with the evidence and record and both the Courts after proper appreciation of evidence on record have decided the case against the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner failed to prove that the order, dated 31-12-1979 was passed by the competent Authority in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that schedule attached by the petitioner along with this revision petition was not before the Courts below. He further submits that parties are bound by their pleadings. He further submits that plot was cancelled from the name of the petitioner on 22-12- 1959 and the petitioner has allegedly filed appeal against that order before the Assistant Director Housing and Physical Planning Department after considerable delay of about 36 years. He further submits that appeal allegedly was decided in favour of the petitioner on 31-12-1979 and the petitioner did not deposit the dues in terms of the order, dated 31-12-1979 as the petitioner allegedly deposited the dues in the month of October, 1979. This fact alone is sufficient that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands. He further submits that plot inquestion was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1952 with the condition to raise construction within the specified period, which has not been raised by the petitioner till date. He further submits that petitioner did not prove the contents of order, dated 31-12-1979 and 30-4-1952 in terms of provisions of Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984. He further submits that petitioner has filed this suit through general attorney and the petitioner did not appear before the Court,. Therefore, the petitioner has withheld the best evidence. He further submits that it is duty of the petitioner to prove that she is entitled for the grant of proprietary rights, this onus was not discharged by her as is .Evident from the statement of P.W.I. Iftikhar Hussain who stated in his statement that he has seen the disputed plot and did not say a single word qua the entitlement of the petitioner. Similarly, P.W.2 Muhammad Shafi also stated that he has seen the disputed plot. The order, dated 31-12-1979 is not a certified copy, therefore, both the Courts below were justified to non-suit the petitioner with cogent reason. He further submits that petitioner filed a suit for declaration against the order of Sub-Registrar and Registrar, who refused to register the lease purchase agreement vide Civil Suit No.262 in the Court df Civil Judge Ist Class, Khushab on 25-4-1990, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 5-12-1993 on merits wherein it is held that petitioner has no legal document qua ownership of the plot inquestion, therefore, this Court can take the judicial notice of the judgment, dated 5-12-1993, which is between the same parties.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The plot inquestion was allotted to the petitioner in the year, 1952. The lease purchase agreement was executed and registered on 30-4-1952, which is at page 19 (Exh.P.2). The agreement was cancelled by the respondents vide order, dated 22-12-1959 due to non-payment' of the dues and violation of the terms and conditions for not making construction within the prescribed period over the plot inquestion. The petitioner filed belated appeal before , the Assistant Director Housing and Physical Planning Department, who accepted the same vide order, dated 31-12-1979 (Exh.P.3). The first Appellate Court has held in para.10 of the judgment that petitioner has not produced certified copy of the order, dated 31-12-1979 on record. The,lease purchase agreement was executed and presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration, who refused to register the same. The petitioner filed appeal before the Registrar concerned against the order of the Sub-Registrar, who A dismissed the same. The petitioner filed suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge Ist Class, Khushab on 25-4-1990, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 5-12-1993. The petitioner filed suit for declaration for grant of proprietary rights in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Khushab on 1-4-1991, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 15-11-1995. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of District -Judge Khushab, who dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree; dated 16-10-1999. The petitioner failed to place on record certified copy of Exh.P.3, order, dated 31-12-1979 of the Assistant Director Housing and Physical Planning Department. The petitioner failed to, place on record Item No.3 of Schedule of power under the provisions of the Thal Development Authority Act, 1949 under section 81 which is at page 59 of the revision petition. This document was not before the Courts below. P.W.1 Iftikhar Hussain stated in iris statement that he has seen the disputed plot and petitioner/plaintiff is owner in possession of the said plot. Muhammad Shafi P.W.2 also stated in his statement that he has seen the disputed plot. It was allotted in the name of .The petitioner/plaintiff. Petitioner did not appear in the witness-box. In case the aforesaid facts are put in a juxta-position that it is crystal clear that the basic document of title in favour of the petitioner is order, dated 31-12-1979. Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioner that the petitioner has not placed on record certified copy of the document. It is settled principle of law that in case the original document is not available on the record then petitioner has to prove the contents of the documents after securing permission from the Court through secondary evidence. It is admitted fact that petitioner has not requested the Court to prove the document inquestion, order, dated 31- 121 979 through secondary evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that original lease purchase agreement was executed and registered on 30-4-1952 but the petitioner failed to pay the dues of the respondents and failed to raise any construction over the plot inquestion. Consequently, same was cancelled by the respondents vide order, dated 22-12-1959. The petitioner has not filed an appeal within the prescribed period before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner secured the order from the Assistant Director Housing and Physical Planning Department in her favour on 31-12- 1979 but the petitioner did not deposit the dues of the respondents in terms of the order, dated 31- 12-1979, which was deposited in the month of October, 1989 coupled, with the fact that petitioner did not enter appearance in the witness-box. Meaning thereby the petitioner has withheld the best evidence. The statement of Iftikhar Hussain P.W.1 and Muhammad Shafi P.W.2 did not prove the contents of order, dated 30-4-1952 and 31-12-1979. Both the Courts below after proper appreciation of evidence have given concurrent finding of the fact against the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that this Court has very limited jurisdiction to disturb the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by both the Courts below while exercising powers under section 115 of C .P.0 . The parameters has been prescribed by the Privy Council for interfering in the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by both the Courts below under section 115, C.P.C. Since 1949, in "N.S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madrass (PLD 1949 PC 26). The relevant observation is as follows:-- "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly. From the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law".
7. The judgment of the Privy Council was considered and followed by this Court in "Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Syed Khalid Mehmood" (1985 CLC 657 ). It is pertinent to mention here that judgment of this Court was upheld by the Honourable. Supreme Court vide Judgment, dated 31-3-1985 passed in C.P. No. 1146 of 1984, which was again reaffirmed and approved by_the Honourable Supreme Court in the reported judgment Ghulam Qadir's case (PLD 1988 SC 625). The learned counsel of the petitioner failed to bring the case within the parameters prescribed by the Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment. The learned counsel of the petitioner also failed to point, out any E infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgments of both the Courts below, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of the facts of.
The. Courts below, which have been given after proper appreciation of evidence on record.
In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.
Revision . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.