' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.---This is a Revision Application against the judgment and decree passed by two Courts below by which the suit of the respondents Nos.1 and 2 was decreed.
2. The facts giving rise to the present application are that the respondents 1 and 2 filed the suit for Declaration and Possession stating therein that the suit property was allotted to them by the KDA.
Subsequently it was cancelled on the ground that the construction was not raised and the property was sealed hence the respondents Nos.1 and 2 prayed for the following declaration:-- "(a) Declaring that the cancellation and sealing of Plot No.49, in Sector 24 is illegal, unjust, ultra vires, the terms and conditions of the allotment and is made with mala fide intentions, arbitrary, exercise of discretion and without proper investigation and is of no effect and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 continue to be allottees of the said plot. /
(b) For possession of Plot No.49, Sector No.24, measuring 2222 square yards situated in Korangi Township, Karachi.
(c) Costs of the suit.
(d) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the circumstances of the case."
3. Pending adjudication of the suit the applicant moved an application for impleading him as a party, which was allowed. He filed written statement supporting the cancellation of allotment of plot. He alleged that subsequently the plot was sold to him. The K.D.A. Did not contest the matter, therefore, they did not file any written statement.
4. Learned trial Judge after framing the issues allowed the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. The parties led evidence. After considering the material available on the record and hearing the parties' counsel, the learned trial Judge formed the opinion that the KDA had wrongly cancelled the allotment of the respondents 1 and 2, therefore, the plot was not rightly allotted to the applicant, as such, the suit was decreed. The applicant challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court before the Appellate Court but the Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, hence the present revision application.
5. I have heard parties' Advocates and perused the record of this case very carefully. The learned Advocate for the applicant has stated that the learned trial Judge did not consider the evidence and misread the same which led to a wrong conclusion of the case and that the case of the applicant was not considered at all, hence the impugned judgment suffers from material irregularity and illegality.
6. Learned Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 has stated that the lower Courts have considered the evidence and decided the case on the admitted facts, therefore, there was no need for detailed discussion on the evidence.
7. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.3 has not supported the impugned judgment and decree on the ground that the allotment order was rightly passed as the respondents Nos.1 and 2 did not comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment order.
8. I have given due consideration to the arguments, gone through the material available on the record and found that the suit property was allotted to respondents 1 and 2 on 2-1-1965. The possession was handed-over to them on 26-1-1965. Plan for construction was submitted on the same date. On 28-8-1965 a show-cause notice was issued to the respondents 1 and 2 by the respondent No.3 on the ground that they had not raised construction, therefore, why the allotment of the plot should not be cancelled. After two months of the said notice the respondent No.3 raised objection on the plan submitted by respondents Nos.1 and 2 on 26-1-1965 with directions that the objection be complied with within a period of two months. Before the expiry of the said period the allotment of the respondents Nos.l and 2 was cancelled on 23-12-1965 and then subsequently the plan was approved on 11-6-1966.
9. From the above position it is clear that the respondent No.3 was responsible for delaying the matter as the plan was submitted for approval on 26-1-1965 but the respondent No.3 raised objection after 9 months of submission of the plan and then objections were to be complied with up to 26-12-1965. However, before the expiry of the said period the allotment was cancelled without any justification. Furthermore, the objections were complied with by the respondent vide letter dated 23-12-1965. On the same date the allotment was cancelled. From the above position it is clear that the allotment order was illegally cancelled, hence the findings of both the Courts below are maintained. When the allotment was illegally cancelled, therefore, the respondent No.3 was not entitled to allot the plot to the applicant.
10. There is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned judgment or misreading or non-reading of evidence, hence the application has no merit, the same is dismissed.