' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This civil revision assails the judgment and decrees dated 28- 5-2002 and 14-6-2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge and the learned Additional District Judge Shor Kot District Jhang, whereby the suit and appeal of the petitioner were dismissed, respectively.
2. Precisely relevant facts are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of land measuring 85 Kanals and 10 Marlas detailed in the plaint on the basis of an oral gift and the respondents have no right, title or interest therewith. The petitioner also challenged Mutation No.1001 dated 2-11-1998, regarding land measuring 38 Kanals sanctioned by respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 and Mutation No.2002 dated 2-11-1998 regarding land measuring 47 Kanals and 10 Marlas from respondent No.1 in favour of respondent No.3 Mutation No.1307 on the basis of decree dated 31-3-2000 and sale-deed dated 26-5-2000 were also prayed to be declared as forged, fictitious, and without consideration. The petitioner also prayed permanent injunction as consequential relief, restraining the respondents from interfering in his possession/ownership.
3. The respondents being defendants in the suit contested it by filing their written statement wherein they raised certain preliminary objections and pleaded that gift on the basis of which the petitioner filed the suit, is fake and fictitious. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence.
4. In another matter which was pending in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge,' the parties agreed to the appointment of referee namely Mehr Saeed Ahmad Ludhiana Advocate, who made a statement on 15-5-2002 and on the basis of statement of the referee, the appellate Court vide his order dated 15-5-2002, directed the learned Civil Judge who was cognizant of this suit, to dismiss it, consequently the trial Court ordered dismissal of suit of the petitioner vide order dated 28-5-2002.
5. The petitioner aggrieved of the order of the trial Court, dismissing his suit, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14-6-2003.
' The petitioner, thereafter, filed the instant revision petition wherein, the respondents after service of notices by this Court have appeared through their respective counsel.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Mehr Muhammad Saeed Ludhiana Advocate, was appointed as a referee and he could not make any inquiry/investigation about the claim of the parties and instead, was to make a statement on the basis of his own knowledge/information but his statement shows that he underwent investigation, thus his statement could not be relied for decision of the suit, in view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Farid Khan v. Muhammad Hanif Khan and others (1990 SCMR 763). He further submitted that the referee gathered information from the pleadings of the parties but this course was not permissible under law, in this behalf he referred to the judgment in the case of Ali Hussain v. Rafiquddin and 9 others (PLD 1977 Lahore 418) and Sher Zaman v. Noor Zaman Khan and another (PLD 1977 Lahore 672). It was also submitted that the trial Court acted with material irregularity in not deciding the suit after recording of evidence on merits.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents refuted the arguments of the petitioner, supported the concurrent judgment and decrees of the two Courts below and urged that referee did not enter into any investigation, he did not consult any record and also did not even record the statements of the parties thus, it cannot be said that he exceeded his limits of authority or acted as Arbitrator/Local Commissioner. He further submitted that there was a chain of litigation between the parties, criminal as well as civil and the petitioner after having disposed of litigation against him on the basis of statement of the referee is now with mala fide intention to harm the respondent, has taken a frivolous stand. He further elaborated his arguments that the petitioner filed an application objecting to the decision of the Referee, but he subsequently withdrew it on 22- 5-2002 concurring to decision of the case in terms of statement of the referee and now he is stopped under law to turn back and to take contrary stance. It was also submitted on behalf of the respondent that parties are closely related to each other, as respondent is real paternal Aunt of the petitioner and she being old and ailing lady, petitioner intends to usurp her property.
8. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended herewith. Appointment of referee was made through a written agreement dated 30-1-2002 which has not been disputed by any of the parties. Besides this appointment through a written agreement, the matter was referred to Muhammad Saeed Ahmad Ludhiana, Advocate, Shor Kot as referee by the trial Court who on 15-5-2002 in presence of the learned counsel for the parties, made a statement before the Court resolving the disputes regarding all the criminal and civil cases between them. The appellate Court before whom the statement of the referee was recorded in presence of the parties and their respective counsel directed to trial Court to decide the suit in the light of the statement of the referee making the statement as a part of the decision.
9. Now only point which hinges for determination is whether the statement of Mehr Saeed Ahmad Ludhiana Advocate is as a Referee or as an arbitrator/local commissioner and as to whether the referee violated the reference of his appointment by undertaking inquiries or Investigations. No doubt Referee in his statement dated 15-5-2002 has mentioned that he is making the statement on the basis of his own information and the one collected by him but it does not convey that he held any trial or undertook any inquiry. File is absolutely thirsty of the proof of sifting of files, examination of parties, or of any witness or holding of trial by the Referee before making his statement on 15-5-2002. There is no cavil about the proposition that the Referee as compared to arbitrator/local commissioner, is supposed make the statement on the basis of his own knowledge and information. In the case in hand as noted above the statement was made by the referee according to his own knowledge and the word used by him that "on the basis of information collected", refers to his own mental re-collection of information otherwise he did not collect any information, out of exertion. Had the petitioner been serious about his objection to the conduct of referee then why he withdrew his objection on 22-5-2002 and why he allowed disposal of cases against him on the basis of the statement of the referee? Even otherwise the forum selected by the petitioner for challenging the status of the "Referee" is not proper because, he should have challenged his appointment or statement in the proceedings where he filed the objections and statement of the Referee was recorded. He cannot be permitted to raise such objections in collateral proceedings.
10. For what has been discussed above, I am constrained to hold that both the Courts below rightly decided this lis, on the basis of statement of the Referee duly appointed by the petitioner himself.
None of the Courts below committed any illegality or irregularity, in absence of which no interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court is permissible under law. This revision petition has no merit in it, and is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.