'IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J . --- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment, dated 17th May, 2001 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revision filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner filed a suit for declaration against respondents Shamoon and Muhammad Younas alleging therein that he is owner of Plot No,166/3-R and that the respondents are the owner of Property No,62/52/B and that the respondents included the Property No,166/3-R by fictitious and incorrect reports and in order to snatch the ownership of the plaintiff/petitioner. The suit was contested by the respondents by filing written statements wherein they denied the claim of petitioner. Learned trial Court framed issues arising out of pleadings of the parties. Both the parties led evidence to substantiate their respective pleas.
Learned trial Court after having gone through the evidence and taking into consideration all attending aspects of the case, vide judgment dated 23rd April, 1986 decreed the suit. Feeling dissatisfied from the judgment/decree of the trial Court, respondents preferred appeal before the District Judge, Sargodha, who dismissed the same vide judgment, dated 21st June, 1986. Being aggrieved from the judgments of the trial and Appellate Courts, respondents filed a revision petition before the High Court, which has been allowed and the case was remanded to the learned Appellate Court with direction to entertain the documents filed by the respondents before the High Court and to allow the petitioner to rebut the same. On remand, learned Additional District Judge, accepted the appeal vide judgment dated 22nd February, 2001 and judgment/decree dated 23rd April, 1986 passed by the trial Court was set aside and the suit of petitioner was dismissed.
3. It may be noted that learned Appellate Court accepted the appeal of the respondents considering them to be the owners of the Shop No,62/52/B in view of the document brought on record as Exhs.D.9, D.10 and D.12. Relevant para. From the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-- "The case of the respondent/plaintiff was that he was owner of the Property bearing No,166/3/R, whereas the appellants predecessor-in-interest Shamoon has shown it as Property bearing No,62/52/B to which he has no right to assert. Contention of the appellants was that the property in dispute was in fact bearing No,62/52/B and the respondent/plaintiff has misnomered it and also given its description in the plaint incorrectly. P.W.5 Ghulam Yasin, a witness of the respondent/ plaintiff admitted that Shop No,62/52/B is owned by Shamoon, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff is owner of the Property bearing No,166/3/R. The document Exh.D.9, Exh.D.10 and Exh.D.11 also established that Shamoon, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants is owner of the Shop bearing No,62/52/B and this fact is even admitted by P.W.5, witness of the respondent/plaintiff. Moreover P.W.1 Faiz Muhammad Record Keeper also admitted during cross-examination that according to the schedule of the property, the Shop bearing No,62/52/B was transferred to Shamoon predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, therefore, in view of the documentary evidence and statement of P.W.5 it is proved beyond doubt that Shamoon is the owner of Shop bearing No,62/52/B and it is also an admitted fact that Qabool Khan respondent/plaintiff is owner of Property bearing No,166/3/R. Now the question. Arises whether the property which the respondent/plaintiff has described in his site plan Exh.P.1, shown in red, does bear No,166/R/3 or it bears Nos.62/52/B. The respondent/plaintiff Qabool Khan has examined P.W.2 Ghulam Muhammad Draftsman who prepared the site plan Exh.P.1. This site plan was prepared at the instance of respondent/plaintiff. He admitted that when he prepared the site plan there existed no shop over it. He was also not in position to depose as to when he prepared the site plan.
Obviously he would have prepared it at the time of filing of the suit or just before that. The suit was filed in the year 1983. The respondent/ plaintiff claimed to have purchased the suit property in the year 1970 and he also claimed that he constructed the shop just after its purchase. It is astonishing to note that the disputed property is not shown as shop in the site plan Exh.P.1 if it was purchased by the respondent/plaintiff. On the other hand, the appellants have placed on record site plan of the shop in dispute which was shown in green in the site plan Exh.D.1. The appellants have also examined D. W.1 Gulzar Ahmad who prepared it. According to Exh.D.1, the Shop bearing No,62/52 on the northern side of the shop in dispute belongs to Yasin and Shop No,62/52/A also belongs to Ashiq Ali, whereas on the southern side of the shop in dispute, there is Shop No,62/53 of Basit Ali, P.W.6 respondent/plaintiff admitted that on the northern side there is Shop bearing Nos.62/52/A of Ashiq Ali adjacent to the shop in dispute. Qabool Khan P.W.6 also admitted the existence of Shop bearing No,62/53 of Basit Ali on the southern side of the shop in dispute. In this view of the matter, in between the shops of Ashiq Ali and Basit Ali naturally the Shop bearing No,62/52/B would come which belongs to Shamoon, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. Sequence of the shops as shown in the site plan Exh.D.1, establishes that there is no Property bearing No,166/3/R in the row of the shops as mentioned in the site plan Exh.P.1 and only the Property bearing Nos.62/52, 62/52-A and 62/53 come around in the row of the shop in dispute. Rather P.W.5 admitted in cross- examination that Plot bearing No,166/3/R is situated behind the shop in dispute. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff's objected to the admissibility of the report Exh.D.9 on the ground that the document is not per se admissible in evidence. This objection has no force in it because the Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore, has allowed the appellants to produce the document.
Secondly, the report placed on file as Exh.D.9, is a part of official record and is per se admissible.
The appellants, therefore, have successfully proved that the property in dispute bears No,62/52/B and this property belongs to the appellants. There is force in this objection of the appellants that the respondent/plaintiff had misnomered the property in dispute as 166/R/3 and described it incorrectly in the plaint. The findings of learned trial Court on Issues Nos.2, 3 and 9 are, therefore, hereby set aside and issues Nos.2, 3 and 9 are decided in favor of the appellants and against the respondent/plaintiff."
' Against the above judgment of the Additional District Judge, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the High Court, which has been dismissed by means of impugned judgment. As such instant petition for leave to appeal has been filed.
4. It may be noted that learned High Court while examining the admissibility of document Exh.D.9, produced by the respondents before the Appellate Court held that it is not admissible in view of Article 88 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and held that Appellate Court was not justified to rely upon this document. However, learned High Court instead of remanding the case to the trial Court to ascertain the admissibility or otherwise of Exh.D.9 had proceeded to decide the case on merits, during the course whereof the evidence produced by parties was considered and ultimately it came to the conclusion that revision petition filed by petitioner has no substance as such same was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
5.- Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that learned High Court has misread the evidence available on record, therefore, interference is called for by this Court.
6. It may be noted that as far as status of document Exh.D.9 is concerned, it cannot be considered to be valid for the reasons that High Court had decided the revision while non-considering it to be a valid one, and maintained the judgment of the Appellate Court in view of the other evidence available on record including the admission etc. Made on behalf of respondents/defendants. So far as document Exh.D.11 is concerned, it was duly issued by the Settlement Authority to prove the proprietary rights of the respondents over the Property bearing No,62/52/B. Whereas on the other hand as far as the petitioner is concerned they had not produced any convincing documents of the title except Exh.D.12, an unregistered sale-deed dated 4th August, 1970 executed for sale consideration of Rs,99. In our opinion this document is not sufficient to prove proprietary rights of the petitioner over the property in dispute. Therefore, for such reason we are of the opinion that learned High Court has rightly dismissed the revision petition filed by petitioner.
' Thus, for the foregoing reasons petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.