' MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.---This civil revision assails judgments and decrees dated 29-10- 1995 and 1-4-1998 passed by learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, respectively, whereby suit of respondent No,1 was decreed and appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. A short factual background of the case is that respondent No,1 filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction, pleading that he was allotted Plot No,34, Block-W, Street No,9, Madina Town, a housing scheme originally prepared by Housing and Physical Planning Department, Faisalabad.
This housing scheme was later on taken over by Faisalabad Development Authority (F.D.A.), who developed it by laying roads and sewerage etc. Respondent No,1 asserted in his plaint that he filed application for allotment of a plot in response to invitation by the Housing and Physical Planning Department and also deposited an initial amount of Rs,600 whereafter obtained possession of the plot allotted to him, noted above. Respondent No,1 asserted that he has raised constructions over the plot and is residing there. Faisalabad Development Authority, who was arranging the affairs of the scheme since, 1979 was approached by respondent No,1 and its employees issued a voucher for deposit of Rs,8,230 dated 20-8-1987 but at the time of deposit of this amount by him, the receipt of money was refused which necessitated respondent No,1 to file suit with a prayer that respondent No,3 may be directed to execute sale documents, on receipt of balance sale price. He also prayed a permanent injunction against the respondents from transferring the disputed plot to anybody else. Pending suit, the petitioner on 25-5-1991 filed an application under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. On the ground that the plot in dispute has already been allotted to him. Trial Court allowed impleadment of the petitioner vide order dated 25-5-1992 and arrayed him as a defendant in the suit.
3. The respondents filed separate written statements. Faisalabad Development Authority besides raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the suit, lack of cause of action to respondent No,1 and absence jurisdiction of the Civil Court to try the dispute raised in the plaint, pleaded in its written statement that it has not received any file from Housing and Physical Planning Department, of the plot in question and denied allotment in favour of respondent No,1.
According to it, possession of the plot was not delivered to the alleged allottee and consequently constructions were claimed to be illegal. F.D.A. Admitted that Madina Housing Scheme was originally laid by the Housing and Physical Planning Department. The petitioner in his written statement (as defendant No,4) asserted a lawful allotment by respondent No,4 and besides raising similar defence, the like one taken by respondent No,4, graded documents of respondent No,1 as forged and fake. Controversial pleadings of the . Parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned trial Judge who was seized of the matter, after doing the needful vide his judgment and decree dated 29-10-1995 granted respondent No,1 a decree prayed for.
4. Respondent No,1 along with his suit had filed , an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Praying prohibitory injunction against respondents Nos.3 and 4 who were the only defendants at that time that they may be restrained from allotting the plot to any body else. This application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 1-4-1991 and respondent No,1 went in appeal against the dismissal of his application. The Appellate Court admitted the appeal to regular hearing and vide its order dated 6-4-1991 required status quo to be maintained pending appeal, which was ultimately decided on 25-2-1992. The petitioner claims allotment of the plot in dispute through an order dated 7-4-1991 which was made during the currency of the status quo order by the Appellate Court, hearing appeal against the temporary injunction.
5. From resume of above facts, the petitioner aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 29-10- 1995 passed by the trial Court, filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge but remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 1-4-1998.
Then he filed this revision petition which was admitted to regular hearing and has now been laid for final determination.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original order in favour of respondent No,1 was not produced on the record of the trial Court and only a copy of it, was tendered in evidence, as such, respondent No,1' s allotment was not proved. He further submits that P.W.1 and P. W.2 had deposed that name of respondent No,1 was not included in the list handed over to respondent No,4 by the Housing and Physical Planning Department, so he cannot claim to be a lawful allottee of the plot subject of suit. It has also been contended that certified copy of the allotment (Exh.P.1) is forged and fake. According to precise submissions of the petitioner, allotment of respondent No,1 does not exist and is not also proved on the file and in absence of any valid allotment order, suit of respondent No,1 could not have been decreed.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,1 has refuted the assertions of the petitioner, supported the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and urged that employees of Faisalabad Development Authority, while, appearing in the witness-box admitted that name of respondent No,1 exist in the record, the only thing denied by them was that they did not receive file of respondent No,
1. According to him, respondent No,1 could not have been non- suited on such vague assertions because he after obtaining possession of the plot, has raised construction, thereover and is living therein. It was also contended that there is documentary evidence on file, showing that the plot was actually allotted by the earlier department in the year, 1978 and he deposited a part of the consideration. He further submits that attested copy of the allotment order was produced in evidence which cannot be doubted without any evidence to the effect that it was forged or fake. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 further elaborates his arguments by saying that the petitioner is a fake allottee because plot of respondent No,1 could not have been allotted to him, without cancellation of the plot from the name of respondent No,1 and that too, pending status quo order by the Appellate Court, hearing appeal against order refusing temporary injunction. In his submissions, allotment of the petitioner is mala fide and violative of the appellate order and hence is bad at law.
8. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Besides the fact that allotment in favour of the petitioner was in violation of status quo order dated C 6-4-1991 which becomes operative the moment, it is passed, respondent No,1 had produced evidence in support of his allotment in the year, 1978. P.W.1, Muhammad Akbar, Senior Accountant Recovery, F.D.A. Admitted that an entry with regard to :Plot No,34, Ward No,9, in the register does exist in the name of respondent No,1 (Abdul Ghafoor son of Hashmat Ali). He further admitted that according to this entry an amount of Rs,600 stood deposited and balance amount payable was Rs,5573. Case of Faisalabad Development Authority is that it did not receive file from the Housing and Physical Planning Department but in presence of entry of allotment in the name of respondent No,1, as deposed by P.W.1, non-receipt of file by F.D.A., is meaningless. There is a certified copy of allotment of respondent No,1 produced in evidence as Exh.P.1 production of which was not objected at the time of its exhibition and it shows that plot in question was allotted to respondent No,
1. There is no evidence, worth the name, to show that this document (Exh.P.1) is forged or fake. Evidence proved by respondent No,1, as noted above, goes to prove this document to be genuine one. None of the respondents Nos.2 to 4 or the petitioner have denied the possession of respondent No,1 over the plot in dispute and they simply graded his possession as illegal. Possession and construction over the plot by respondent No,1 is enough to corroborate his stance. "
9. For what has been discussed above, it is obvious that both the Courts below have passed rightful judgments which are absolutely in consonance with the evidence on the file and it, neither has been asserted nor has been proved to have been misread. Both the Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity in concluding the dispute between the parties, in absence of which, no interference by this Court, in revisional jurisdiction, is permissible under law. This revision petition has no merit in it and is, consequently, dismissed with costs.