This revision petition filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs impugns the concurrent orders dated 10-4- 1996 passed by the learned trial Court whereby an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Filed by the respondents-defendants was allowed and the appellate order dated 26-10-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the aforesaid order of the learned trial Court was upheld.
2. The facts of this case for the purpose of disposal of this petition are relatively simple. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of the suit-land through partition. They also prayed for cancellation of sale-deed, dated 12-12-1960 and consequential Mutation No,613, dated 31-5- 1961. The sale-deed allegedly was executed by Siraj Din predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners in favour of Chiragh Din father of the two respondents. Through the sale-deed 4 acres out of 25 belonging to Siraj Din had been conveyed by Siraj Din to Chiragh Din.
3. The respondents-defendants filed a written statement and also filed an application under Order VII, rule 11; C.P.C. In this application, it was firstly asserted that the suit which had been filed on 20-9- 1995 was time-barred because it attempted to impugn a sale-deed dated 12-12-1960 and a mutation which was sanctioned on 31-5-1961. The other contention of the respondents was that the suit was also barred under section 11 and Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. Because the petitioners-plaintiffs had earlier filed a suit for declaration relating to the same property which had been dismissed after the evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs in the said suit had been closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C.
4. The petitioners in response to the aforesaid averments in the application denied that they had ever filed a suit earlier. They also asserted that they remained co-owners in the joint Khata having sold only 4 acres out of 25 owned by their predecessor-in-interest Siraj Din. They, therefore, claimed that the present suit was neither time-barred nor was it barred under the provision of section 11 or Order II rule 2, C.P.C.
5. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 10-4-1996 allowed the application filed by the respondents under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. As a consequence, the plaint filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs was rejected. It was observed by the learned trial Court that the respondents-defendants had filed an affidavit and photo copies of the plaint, written statement, decree-sheet and order, dated 19-11-1992 passed by a Civil Court in the earlier suit allegedly filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs. It was also noted that the petitioners had not produced any document in rebuttal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the denial of the petitioners of their ever having filed an earlier suit could only have been decided after recording of evidence. According to him the mere production of photo copies or even certified. Copies of the record of some Other case did not establish the fact that the said suit had been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs. On this basis, it was argued that the learned trial Court had erred in accepting the application. Under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C
7. As to the other contention that the suit was time-barred, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that they continued to be owners in the joint Khata and were, therefore, entitled to maintain the suit for possession through partition. Learned counsel for the respondents, at this point, contended that no document had been filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs with their plaint under Order XIII, rule 1, C.P.C. To show that they had retained any title or interest in the joint Khata.
Learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to show if the petitioners had in their possession any document to show that they were owners in the joint Khata at the time they had filed their suit on 20-9-1995.
8. A number of opportunities were provided to learned counsel for the petitioners to show from any document including the Revenue Record that the petitioners remained co-owners of the aforesaid joint Khata. The petitioners have not been able to do so. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has placed on the file the relevant Revenue Record which clearly shows that the petitioners did not own any land in the joint Khata. Furthermore, as noted above, the suit filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs in 1995, to assail a sale-deed executed in 1960, by their predecessor-in- interest, was clearly time-barred as rightly held by the two Courts below.
9. For the foregoing reasons I find no justification for interfering in the concurrent findings rendered by the two Courts below. This revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Revision .