' ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---Petitioner Mst. Sikandar Bibi who is stated to be the real mother of respondent No,1, has preferred this constitutional petition to assail the judgment and decree, respectively dated 29-9-2003 and 1-10-2003, passed by respondent No,3 in Suit No,593 of 2002, and also judgment and decree, respectively dated 9-12-2004 and 12-2-2005, passed by respondent No,2 in Civil Appeal No,228 of 2003.
2. The relevant facts, leading to this litigation, are that on 19-2-2003 the petitioner had instituted pauper Suit No,593 of 2002 for declaration, cancellation, possession, mesne profit and permanent injunction against the respondent No,1 with the following prayers:--
(a) By declaring the sale agreement dated 16-7-1965 and 10-1-1971 as forged and cancelling the same, and directing the defendant to hand over the same to the plaintiff.
(b) By directing the defendant to hand over the peaceful vacant possession of the suit property i,e, House No,C-974, MAC-1, Gali No,33. Mehmoodabad No,6, Karachi, approximately measuring 200 sq.
Yds. Including shop to the plaintiff.;
(c) By directing the defendant to pay the mense profit to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs,4,000 per month, since 1-1-2000 till 30-11-2002, and onwards.
(d) By granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his heirs, successors, administrators, attorneys, executors and person or persons working for him and on his behalf from selling, mortgaging and transferring the suit property to any person and creating the third party interest till the disposal of the suit.
(e) By awarding the cost of the suit."
3. For grant of such reliefs, her case in the plaint was that in the year 1974 House No,C-974, Old No,1068 and New No,2938, admeasuring 200 square yards, Mehmoodabad No,6, Main Road, Karachi, was gifted to her by her husband Hashmat Ali son of Ummed Ali, thus, she was lawful owner of this property and for that purpose, she had been pursuing her case before various forums, while the claim of respondent No,1 over this property was fraudulent and illegal.
4. On the other hand, respondent No,1 in his written statement has denied the ownership claim of the petitioner on the plea that in the year 1965 she has sold this property to her son-in-law Subhan Khan, from whom the respondent No,1 has purchased it in the year 1971.
5. On the above pleadings of the parties, the respondent No,3 has framed following issues in the matter: "(1) Whether the relief(s) claimed in this suit are time-barred?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the House No,C-974, Old No,1048, New No,2935 in Street No,33, Mehmoodabad No,6, Karachi, measuring 240 sq. Yds having been gifted to her by her husband Hashmat Ali?
(3) Whether the defendant had purchased the suit property from one Subhan, who purchased the same from the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the defendant is a trespasser/illegal occupant over the suit plot?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
(6) What should the decree be?"
6. After recording of evidence adduced by the parties, all the issues framed in the suit were decided by respondent No,3 against the petitioner B vide his judgment dated 29-9-2003 and consequently, her suit was dismissed. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also met with the same fate and it was also dismissed.
7. A preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this petition has been raised by Mr. Saathi M.
Ishaque, learned counsel for respondent No,1 on the ground that remedy by way of civil revision application under section 115, C.P.C. Was available to the petitioner, but it was not availed, and even the copy of impugned judgment and decree, passed by respondent No,2 was applied for in October, 2005 and obtained in November, 2005. While this petition has been preferred on 10-12- 2005, after almost ten months, to overcome the question of limitation, involved in the filing of revision application.
8. In the context of such legal objection raised on behalf of respondent No,1, we have heard the learned counsel and perused the case record.
9. Mr. Ataullah Khan, learned counsel for petitioner, did not controvert that the remedy by way of civil revision application was available to the petitioner, which was not availed by her. However, he attempted to overcome the question of laches involved in the present petition, with reference to Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan and contended that in such circumstances this Court, being the highest Court of the Province and having supervisory jurisdiction, could overlook the question of laches and non-availing of adequate remedy by way of civil revision application under Order 115, C.P.C. To foster the cause of justice.
10. We have taken care of such submission advanced by the learned counsel and perused the relevant record. The submission of Mr. Saathi M. Ishaque that the remedy of civil revision application under section 115, C.P.C. Was available to the petitioner, but it has not been availed by the petitioner for no valid reason, is duly supported from the case record. In our opinion, the provisions of Article 199 of the Constitution, in the wake of availability of adequate alternate remedy, in normal course cannot be circumvented to defeat such statutory provision, and there seems to be no exceptional circumstances to overlook this aspect in the instant petition.
11. Besides, the findings on facts recorded by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in their respective judgments, seem to be based on proper appreciation of evidence and thus not open to scrutiny at