' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This revision petition assails judgments and decrees dated 19- 4-1999 and 2-6-2000 passed by learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Kamalia, rejecting plaint of the petitioner and dismissing his appeal, thereagainst, respectively.
2. A short factual background of the case is that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction as consequential relief, averring that power of attorney No,304 dated 20-6- 1978, purportedly executed by the petitioner and his mother Mst. Jannat Bibi was result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion. The petitioner asserted in his plaint that no such power of attorney was ever executed and as such, execution of registered sale-deed No,2697 dated 27-7- 1978 by the attorney and Mutation No,337 dated 30-1-1980 transferring 27 Kanals of land of Chak No,716/GB Tehsil Kamalia District Toba Tek Singh on the basis thereon, in favour of respondents Farid and others was fake and transferred no title to them and he is still owner of his land.
3. Respondents Nos.2 to 5 being defendants in the suit denied assertion of the petitioner in his plaint and pleaded lawful transfer of land in their favour through a duly constituted attorney (respondent No,1). They pleaded that since both the power of attorney and sale-deed were registered documents, mutation on the basis of those, were lawfully sanctioned by the revenue authorities. The above named respondents, filed an application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint which was contested by the petitioner but succeeded vide order dated 19-11-1999 whereby respondents application under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Was accepted, petitioners' plaint was rejected and respondents Nos.2 to 5 were awarded special costs of Rs,1,000 to be paid by the petitioner.
4. The petitioner aggrieved of the rejection of his plaint vide order dated 19-11-1999, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 2-6-2000, hence, he came up in revisional jurisdiction of this Court which was admitted to regular hearing and has now been taken up, for final determination.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that power of attorney in favour of respondent No,1 was a fictitious document which though was claimed to have been executed by the real brother and mother of respondent No,1 but Mst. Jannat Bibi, their mother had died on 12-3-1978 and the power of attorney was allegedly executed on 20-6-1978 after the death of Mst. Jannat Bibi. He also submits that any transfer on the basis of a fake power of attorney has to be struck down. He further submits that provisions of Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Were not attracted and suit of the petitioner should have been tried after framing of issues and recording of evidence.
' Conversely, learned counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 5 refuted the submissions of the petitioner, supported the concurrent judgments and decrees of two Courts below and urged that in a previous suit wherein the property included in this case was also a part of that suit Khurshid Ahmad and Mumtaz Hussain, petitioner and respondent No,1 who are real brothers, entered into compromise and withdrew their suit, accepting transfer in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5. He further submits that Mst. Shah Jehan Bibi a real niece of the petitioner filed another suit wherein property subject of this litigation was also included and both the petitioner and respondent No,1 were defendants, thereto, who conceded genuineness of Sale-deed No,2796 and Mutation No,337 dated 30-1-1980 in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5. The suit proceeded in presence of concessional statements of above named both the persons and Court ultimately held that transfer in favour of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 is genuine, deciding case against Mst. Shah Jehan Bibi, dismissed her suit. Mst. Shah Jehan Bibi filed an appeal but failed and then she filed a civil revision before this Court but the judgments of two Courts below were maintained. It is his argument that suit under adjudication is collusive between two brothers i.e, the petitioners and respondent No,1 and plaint of the petitioner did not disclose any cause of action as such, the same was rightly rejected.
6. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record appended herewith. The petitioner has not denied two previous litigations between the parties wherein the petitioner and respondent No,1 accepted sale in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5. Lawfulness of transfer in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5 was maintained up to the level of this Court whereafter no cause of action of any kind, was left with the petitioner to challenge this transaction for the 3rd time. Power of attorney, which is claimed to be fake, was executed on 20-6-1978 whereas suit in hand was filed on 19-4-1999. Silence of the petitioner for about two decades, support assertion of respondents Nos.2 to 5. No criminal action is shown to have been taken against the attorney for forging document on behalf of the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner and respondent No,1 are real brothers and it is not shown how they kept nium for such a long time over transfer of their property in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 5.
Suit in hand was filed, after twice admitting sale in favour of the said respondents by them. Suit to challenge a registered sale-deed after a period of 20 years, on the face of the record was barred by limitation. Both the Courts have rightly concluded that plaint does not disclose any cause of action and was rightly rejected by the trial Court.
7. For what has been discussed above, it is evident that both the Courts below have correctly decided lis against the petitioners in accordance with law. No illegality or irregularity has been shown to have been committed by them, in absence of which no interference is called for in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. This revision petition has no merit in it and is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.