' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN, J.---In the background of the present petition lies a small slip of the Revenue Officials which has caused so much damage to both the parties. Mst. Saddozai, widow and Mst. Ghulam Fatima, daughter of Bakka were inter alia owners in Khata Nos.88, 89 and 90 of village Shahbaz, District Tank, and Mst. Gulai etc. Were also the owners in the said Khatas. The respective shares of both the said parties were correctly recorded in the Jamabandi for the year 1960-61. However, while preparing the next Jamabandi for the year 1966-67, the names of Mst.
Saddozai and Mst. Ghulam Fatima were omitted and their shares were accordingly mentioned in the names of other co-owners. This incorrect entry in the Revenue Record continued till the preparation of the Jamabandi for the year 1986-87. Since Mst. Gulai etc. Were shown in the Revenue Record to be the owners of the said property, therefore, they sold their entire share vide Mutation No.550 dated 24-5-1987 to Hassan Khan and Firdaus Khan and accordingly the Revenue Record was amended. Mosam Khan son of Shahzad filed a civil suit against said Hassan Khan and Firdaus Khan. One Halim Khan was also impleaded with them as the main defendants whereas, 24 other persons, reportedly co-owners in the said property, were also impleaded as pro forma defendants. The list included the said Mst. Saddozai and Mst. Ghulam Fatima at Serial Nos.13 and 14.
The suit was processed and vide a comprehensive and well-reasoned judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Tank dated 24-6-1996 a decree was passed whereby Mutation No.550 attested on 25- 4-1987 was set aside with the direction that a fresh mutation be entered by the concerned Revenue Officer protecting the entitlement of said Mst. Saddozai and her daughter Mst. Ghulam Fatima. It was further decreed that the plaintiff shall be entitled to 29 Kanals, 17 Marlas as shown in the extract of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1986-87. An appeal was filed against the said judgment and decree which was dismissed on 13-2-2002. Hence this revision petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the evidence recorded on behalf of the plaintiff had clearly proved that there was no difference of the share of the plaintiff in the Revenue Record nor any of his entitlement was damaged, therefore, the plaintiff in person had no right to agitate a cause for others.
' Secondly, Mst. Saddozai and Mst. Ghulam Fatima were alive when the suit was filed and therefore, the plaintiff had not derived any title from the same two ladies by then. Hence, the plaintiff had no cause of action. Thirdly, that at the most a suit could have been instituted by Mst. Saddozai and Mst. Ghulam Fatima against the error in the Revenue Record and Mosarn Khan should have acted as their attorney but the plaintiff could not sue merely for the cause of some of the pro forma defendants whereas neither any right of the plaintiff nor of other pro forma defendants was injured.
Fourthly, that there was no cause against the defendant No.3 as he had not purchased any property form Mst. Gulai. Fifthly, that even if it was presumed that Mosam Khan was the son of Mst.
Saddozai, he had no cause to claim the potential share of his mother, during her life time. Sixthly, that the cause of action had accrued to the said two ladies in 1966 when there was an incorrect entry in the Revenue Record but they did not seek any remedy to protect their rights till 1989 and so, the suit was barred by time.
3. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that since there are concurrent findings of the two Courts below, therefore, the revision petition was not competent and that the grounds raised during the arguments were neither stated in the grounds of revision petition nor in the earlier pleadings.
4. The arguments on behalf to the respondents are not tenable. All the grounds have been duly taken in the revision petition as well as in the written statement. It has been stated in the written statement that the "plaintiff has no locus standi". In para.9 of the revision petition, it was again stated that "Mosam Khan, respondent/plaintiff had neither cause of action nor locus standi". In para.10 it was further explained that "the name of Ghulam Fatima and Mst. Saddozai were omitted in the Jamabandi for 1966-67 and the present suit was not instituted by Ghulam Fatima (then alive). There are several defects in this case. The plaintiff had no personal cause, all the real defendants were not the beneficiaries of the impugned transaction, the real aggrieved person being pro forma defendants Nos.13 and 14 have not agitated their claim, the defendants did not focus on the proof on certain specific issues, the judgment of the Appellate Court was not in compliance with the requirement of Order XLI, C.P.C. Therefore, this case has been processed for almost sixteen years in abstract and directionless manner. Voluminous record of the entire village has been placed in evidence whereas only a part thereof was relevant.
5. It has to be noted here that the trial of civil suits relating to agricultural property is normally delayed for several years merely for the reason that the Patwari, Girdawar Circle, the ADK, etc. Are either not in attendance or they have not produced the required record. In this way the cases are prolonged and most of the record so produced is not relevant. Such huge record is placed on file merely for fishing any fact if traceable, at the time of arguments. This practice damages the entire system. The Revenue Officers are put to unnecessary hassle, parties are burdened at the cost of preparation of irrelevant documents, the cases are delayed without any justification and the time of the Courts is consumed for sifting the irrelevant record lest anything relevant may not be missed. The learned Civil Judge has appropriately referred to this malpractice in this case.
6. The Code of Civil Procedure has already provided for an appropriate mechanism. The certified copies of the documents, issued from official record, can be admitted in evidence. Certain documents can be placed in evidence after giving notice to the other party to admit the documents. Any party controverting the truth or the contents of such documents can produce the certified copy containing the entries as they allege. In rare cases, the Revenue Officers can be summoned to verify and explain any controversy. This is high time that this matter may be considered seriously by the Bench and the Bar to reduce the delays in the disposal of cases.
7. In this case, in addition to what has been argued on behalf of the petitioners, as reproduced above, there is one more aspect of the case that due to the negligence of the said two ladies, the property remained in the names of those who were not entitled to it and they sold their rights to petitioners Nos.1 and 2 apparently for valid consideration and without notice of any defect in the title of the vendors. Thus, even if the suit is filed by the said ladies or their successors, the innocent vendors will be adversely affected because they will be deprived of a right vested in them through valid transfer, with due diligence, for valid consideration and without notice to the earlier mistake.
Thus, it would cause a miscarriage of justice where the plaintiffs, if any, will get the benefit of their negligence and the vendees will suffer despite their diligence and the beneficiary of such mistaken title shall go unchecked. This is one of the typical matters which provides the justification for the law of limitation. A stitch in time would certainly have saved nine in this practical case. Had the said ladies acted vigilantly in the late sixties, neither the said Mst. Gulai would have had the opportunity of encashing that which did not belong to her nor the diligent vendees would have been put to unending litigation with the danger of loss of their title.
8. In view of what has been stated above, the view point of the learned Appellate Court is not available on many of the above questions for the simple reason that the judgment was not discussed issuewise. Any conclusive comments on any of the said points is likely to prejudice the case of either party. Hence, it is a fit case for remand. The revision petition is, therefore, accepted, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned District Judge, B Tank for disposal of the appeal afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Tank on 19-7-2005.