' ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.--- This is the regular first appeal under section 96, C.P.C. Against the impugned judgment and decree, dated 15-11-2003 'passed by the learned Civil Judge, 1st Class Islamabad, through which the suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction filed by the appellant/plaintiff against C.D.A. Respondent/defendant has been dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.) published an advertisement in various Newspapers for auction of Plot No,17, situated at Markaz F-II, Islamabad.
The auction was conducted on 17-11-1999. The appellant participated in the bid and respondent No,1, declared the appellant as successful bidder by accepting his offer of Rs,3,11,99,688 being the highest one. The mode of payment was described in clause 17 of the terms and conditions contained in the Brochure (Exh.P.3) of Capital Development Authority (Estate Management Directorate-II) for auction of the commercial and other plots in Islamabad. Clause 17 says that "in case 25% of the total premium of the plot exceeds Rs,5,50,000 in case of plots of less than 500 sq.
Yards and Rs,8,50,000 in case of plots of above 500 sq. Yards, the balance amount of 25% shall be deposited by the successful bidder within 48 hours from the auction day, failing which the bid shall stand rejected and 10% of the total amount of premium, or the deposited amount whichever is less, shall stand forfeited in favour of C.D.A.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he paid an amount of ' Rs,8,50,000 at the time of auction by complying with condition No,17 (ibid) but before he could deposit the remaining amount within 48 hours from the auction day, under condition No,17, he received a notice from the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Islamabad wherein one Muhammad Riaz, filed a suit against the appellant as well as C.D.A./respondent. An interim injunction was issued by the Civil Court whereby the respondents were directed to refrain from alienating the suit plot in an illegal manner. The appellant was ready to make payment but on receiving a notice in suit titled Muhammad Riaz v. C.D.A. And another, he submitted an application to the C.D.A./respondent on 19-11-1999, which was received by respondent on 20-11-1999. Respondent/C.D.A. Did not accept the highest bid of the petitioner and proceeded to sell the property in open auction without any intimation to the appellant and without formally rescinding the sale of the property to the appellant. The respondent despite of the injunctive order sold out the property in open auction and confirmed the sale of the same. It is further averred that the appellant initiated contempt proceedings against the respondent.
Therefore, the appellant was left with no remedy except to file a suit for declaration to the effect that the appellant is a lawful auction-purchaser of the plot vide auction dated 17-11-1999 and the enlistment of the suit plot for auction is illegal, ultra vires, unlawful, arbitrary and ineffective upon the rights of the appellant and mandatory injunction directing the C.D.A. To fix time frame for payment of the balance amount after vacating the stay order issued in the case of Muhammad Riaz.
4. The suit was contested by the Capital Development Authority by filing a written statement. It was contended that the plaintiff had no locus standi. To file the present suit. The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of the proper parties as the suit plot has been auctioned on 11-10- 2000. Messrs Mumtaz Akhtar, Khurshid Alain Chaudhry, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Riaz have been declared highest bidders and they have deposited 25 % of the total bid within 48 hours according to the terms and conditions of auction. As the plaintiff did not deposit the 25% of the total bid amount, according to the terms and conditions of auction, therefore, his earnest money was forfeited, he was neither declared the successful bidder nor any acceptance letter was issued to him, hence, the instant suit is not maintainable under the law.
5. From the divergent pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(6) Whether the suit is barred under section 49-E of C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960? OPD
(7) Whether the defendant is entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiff is the lawful auction purchaser of suit plot and the enlistment of suit plot in the next auction is illegal, unlawful, ineffective and against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP ' Thereafter both parties produced their evidence. From the plaintiff's side Muhammad Sharif, A.E.M., C.D.A. Appeared as P.W.1, Dilshad Ahmed as P.W.2, and an additional evidence of Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Directorate of Estate Management, as P.W.3. In documentary evidence, letter of plaintiff to C.D.A. Exh.P.1, receipt of auction dated 17-11-1999 Exh.P.2, terms and conditions for auction Exh.P.3, attested copy of the suit titled Muhammad Riaz v. C.D.A. And another Exh.P.4 letter dated 27- 11-1994, Exh.P.5, Telegram dated 22-10-1994, Exh.P.6 and letter, dated 10-11-1994, Exh.P.7 were produced.
' From the defendant's side Abid Mehmood Assistant Director, Estate Management, C.D.A. Appeared as D.W.1, Muhammad Hussain, Assistant Estate Management, D.W.2. In documentary evidence, copy of letter of allotment was produced as Exh.D.W.l/1, copy of certificate of possession dated 18- 5-2001 Exh.D.W.1/2, copy of telegram Exh.D.4. Copy of letter dated 10-11-1999, Exh.D.5, copy of letter dated 10-11-1994 Exh.D.7, copy of letter dated 9-3-1995 Exh.D.8, copy of letter dated 7-8-1995 Exh.D.9, photo copy of cheque Exh.D.10 and acknowledgment of payment Exh.D.11 were also produced.
6. On Issue No,8, the trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff did not pay the remaining amount within the 48 hours and wrote a letter ExhiP.1 to the Directorate Estate Management, C.D.A.
Islamabad, through which further instructions were sought. From the bare reading of interim injunction granted by the Civil Court on 19-11-1999, it is very much evident that plaintiff was never restrained from depositing the balance amount of 25% of the total sale consideration. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to fulfil the condition of auction which was mentioned in para.17 of the Brochure Exh.P.3. The injunction was only against the C.D.A. Who was restrained from alienating the suit plot in an illegal manner.
' Under Issue No,1, the Court held that in the light of the finding recorded under Issue No,8, it is evident that the suit plot was rightly cancelled from the name of the plaintiff as he failed to deposit the 25% of the sale amount during the 48 hours in accordance with the rules and regulation of the C.D.A. In the light of trial Court's findings under Issues Nos.1 and 8. Issues Nos.2 and 3 were decided in favour of the defendant. Whereas Issues Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7 were not pressed' hence, decided against the defendant. On the basis of above stated findings, on the issues, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed through the impugned judgment and decree, hence, this appeal.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the trial Court has failed to give its findings or decision with reasons upon each separate issue. The Court was under legal obligation to give its findings and decide each issue separately on the mandate of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. That the trial Court erred in holding that non-depositing of 25% of the sale amount within 48 hours from the auction day justified the cancellation of the plot. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Muhammad Hussain, Assistant, Estate Management, D.W.2 who deposed in his evidence and admitted the fact that the respondent served upon the purchaser a notice for the payment and in the event of non-compliance of the notice the sale is cancelled. It was admitted by the D.W. 1, Abid Mehmood that no notice to appellant was served regarding the cancellation of the plot. Learned counsel while elaborating his argument has contended that the respondent acted with mala fide when it ignored to issue the notice to the appellant especially in the circumstances when it is a practice of the respondent to issue the notice of payment before cancellation of the plot. He has relied on the notices Exh.D.4, Exh.D.5 and Exh.D.6 wherein the respondent in certain cases, demanded the payment even after the lapse of the period under the rules of the C.D.A. Further, the learned counsel contends that the respondent was directed to refrain from alienating the suit property vide order, dated 17-11-1999 i,e, Exh.P.4 in the suit, titled as Muhammad Riaz v. C.D.A. And another and therefore, the payment was to be made qua the plot regarding which the injunctive order was passed and the payment could have been a step forward which could have circumvent the decision of the Court. He relies on condition No,18 which stipulates, "that failure to make these payments, shall employ that the bidder is no more interested in the plot and consequently his bid will stand cancelled automatically". The appellant soon on receipt of notice from the Court without wasting a single day approached the respondent and showed his willingness to pay the amount but sought the instructions in this respect as there was the pendency of suit. Further argues that condition No,21 manifest that in case of delayed payment the charges shall be recovered at a rate of 17.35% per annum. Had the time been the essence of the contract then there would have not been the provision for charging 17.35% as late payment.
Further in paragraph (g) of the grounds of appeal, the learned counsel has stated that the learned trial Court decided Issue No,1, against the appellant and in this respect the judgments i,e, 2000 Law Notes 411 1993 MLD 1976 and PLD 1995 Lah. 451, referred to above by the appellant before the trial Court were not taken into consideration and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed without taking note of above cited case-law.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that under condition No,13 of the terms and conditions of auction .Exh.P.3, the acceptance of the highest bid was subject to approval of C.D.A. Board which reserves the right to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason.
On acceptance of the bid, the bidder would be required to pay to the authority, within two months, 25% of the total premium and also to deposit in the Government Treasury on any authorized Branch of a Bank 3% of the total premium of the plot. He contends that by giving the highest bid, the petitioner did not acquire any valid title in the property. He was under legal obligation to pay the balanced amount of 25% being the successful bidder within 48 hours from the auction day, failing which the bid was liable to be cancelled on the mandate of condition 17 of the terms and conditions of Brochure (Exh.P.3) which has been rightly cancelled/rejected. Since the bid was not accepted by the competent authority i,e, the C.D.A. Board under condition No,17, therefore, there is no question of invoking the conditions Nos.18 and 21 because the petitioner was not the successful bidder, and therefore, there was no question of delayed payment of the charges at the rate of 17.35 per annum in case of delay. Further contends that the plaintiff was never restrained from depositing the balanced amount of 25% of the sale consideration. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to fulfil the condition, mentioned in para.17 of the Brochure (Exh.P.3). So far as the injunctive order is concerned, it was only to the extent of refraining from alienating the suit property, in an in illegal manner, by the respondent/C.D.A. Nowhere in this order was mentioned that plaintiff was entitled to desist from submitting balanced amount of 25% of the sale amount in accordance with the rules and regulations of the C.D.A. Further contends that the suit could not be dismissed merely on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties on the mandate of Order VI, rule 9, C.P.C. But here in the present case, preliminary objection 5 was taken that suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable for non-joinder of the proper party as the plot had been auctioned on 11-10-2000 and Messrs Mumtaz Akhtar, Khurshid Alam Chaudhry, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Riaz have been declared highest bidders and they have deposited 25 % of the total bid within 48 hours according to the terms and conditions. The plaintiff did not make them as party, therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed. Adds that plaintiff was not entitled for any notice. Lastly contends that the case-law relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant in his ground (g) of the grounds of appeal i,e, 2000 Law Notes 411, 1993 MLD 1976 and PLD 1995 Lah. 451, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
9. To resolve the controversy between the parties the reading of some relevant conditions regarding auctioning of the plot contained in the Brochure Exh.P.3. Is necessary:-- Condition No,13. The acceptance of the highest bid would be subject to approval of C.D.A. Board which reserves the right to accept or reject any bid without assigning any reason. On acceptance of the bid, the bidder would be required to pay to the authority, within two months 25% of the total premium and also to deposit in the Government Treasury or any authorized Branch of a Bank 3% of the total premium of the plot Condition No,17. In case 25% of the total premium of the plot exceeds Rs,5,50,000 in case of plots of less than 500 sq. Yards and Rs,8,50,000 in case of plots of above 500 sq. Yards, the balance amount_ of 25% shall be deposited by the successful bidder within 48 hours from the auction day, failing which the bid shall stand rejected and 10% of the total amount of premium or the deposited amount, which ever is less, shall stand forfeited in favour of C.D.A.
Condition No,18. Further 25% towards premium of the plot as well as taxes (Advance Tax etc.) shall be paid by the successful bidder within two months from the date of issue of bid acceptance letter (Annexure "C"). Allotment letter (Annexure "D") containing detailed terms and conditions of allotment will he issued on receipt of 50% of the premium of plot and taxes due thereon. Failure to make these payments shall imply that the bidder is no more interested in the plot and consequently, his bid will stand cancelled automatically and 10% of total premium shall stand forfeited.
Condition No,21. In case of delay the delayed payment charges will be recoverable @ 17.35% per annum (or as may be levied from time to time). However, if any amount of premium and/or of delayed payment charges due thereon remain unpaid, whether formally demanded or not, for a period of two months from the due date, it shall be lawful for the authority to cancel the allotment and forfeit 10% of the total premium. Same will also apply in case of surrender of plot. In case of acceptance of delayed payments, delayed payment charges will be adjusted first and the principal amount later. Non provision of infrastructure at site or non-delivery of possession of plot for any reason will be no justification for non-payment of installment of premium of plot and other dues.
'It is the admitted position on the record that on 17-11-1999, the Capital Development Authority auctioned the suit plot and the highest bidder was the appellant who offered a consideration of Rs,3,11,99,688. An amount of Rs,8,50,000 was paid at the time of auction. According to the terms of auction given in Exh.P.3, a successful bidder was bound to deposit 25% of total consideration within 48 hours from the auction day failing which the bid was liable to be rejected and 10% of the total amount of premium, or the deposited amount, which ever is less, shall stand forfeited in favour of C.D.A. It is also an admitted position on the record that on 19-11-1999 the suit titled Muhammad Riaz v. C.D.A. And another was filed and the learned Civil Judge passed the following order:--'
"The respondents are directed to refrain from alienating the suit plot in an illegal manner."
' A copy of the plaint of the suit filed by Muhammad Riaz against C.D.A. And Dilshad Ahmed Khan, appellant along with order sheet Exh.P.4. Is on the file. The suit was filed on 19-11-1999 on which date the above said order was passed. Notices were issued to defendants including the appellant for 24-11-1999. On 19-11-1999, counsel for the plaintiff Muhammad Riaz of that suit and a representative on behalf of the C.D.A. Were present. Summon were not received back. Fresh summons/ notice were ordered to be issued to defendant No,2/appellant through registered post A.D. For his appearance on 11-12-1999 but on the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was then adjourned to 18-1-2000.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that Reader of the Court recorded a note Nawishta ({{URDU TEXT}} ) on 24-11-1999 on the order-sheet and notice Wapis Nan Aai Hain ( {{URDU TEXT}}). On 28-1-2000, counsel for the plaintiff was in attendance. Representative on behalf of C.D.A. Was also present.
Fresh summons were again ordered to be issued to defendant No,2/appellant to appear on the next date viz. 24-2-2000 and on this date, the Presiding officer was on leave and the case was then adjourned to 24-3-2000 but on this date also the Presiding Officer was again on leave, therefore, the case was adjourned to 22-4-2000. On this date counsel for the plaintiff and the representative of the C.D.A. Was present. For the summoning of the appellant who was defendant in the suit the process fee was not deposited and the case was then adjourned to 22-5-2000. On 22-5-2000 an order was made for service of the appellant/ defendant through substituted service/Publication under Order V, rule 20, C.P.C. In the daily "Jurrat" and due to non-depositing of the proclamation fee, the case was adjourned to 11-9-2000. It was for the first time that appellant-defendant appeared before the said Court on 11-9-2000. The question arises as to when the appellant-defendant was not served in the suit titled Muhammad Riaz (r. C.D.A. And Dilshad Ahmad Khan, till 11-9-2000 how the appellant could knew that the said suit has been filed by Muhammad Riaz against C.D.A. And against him in which an injunctive order has been.Issued. In his application Exh.P.1, dated 22-11- 2000 he had stated that, on 19-11-2000 he received the order from the Court of Mr. Sohail Abid, Civil Judge, 1st Class, Islamabad. The statement made in the application Exh.P.1 is not correct and contrary to the record of the suit titled as Muhammad Riaz v. C.D.A. And others Exh.P.4. This goes long way to show that it was collusive arrangement between appellant and Muhammad Riaz that the above suit was filed only to delay the payment and to grab the property, without paying the remaining amount being a successful bidder within 48 hours from the auction day. Besides that an injunctive order was issued and C.D.A. Was restrained from alienating the suit plot in an illegal manner Nowhere in this order the plaintiff was restrained from depositing the balanced amount i,e, 25% of the sale price in accordance with the terms of auction. Since the appellant also did not deposit 25% of the sale amount within 48 hours from the auction date, the highest bid offered by the appellant was rightly rejected by the C.D.A. Board and his acceptance was thus not confirmed in favour of the petitioner which gave no cause of action to,the petitioner on the above count. The terms and conditions given in paragraphs 13 and 17 of the Brochure Exh.P.3, if put in juxtaposition would make it clear that the highest bid was subject to approval/acceptance of the C.D.A. The highest bid is not accepted automatically until the same is not accepted by the C.D.A./competent authority. In the instant case, the competent authority was C.D.A. Board. The question arises whether any vested right accrued in favour of the appellant by mere participation in auction proceedings held by the respondents being highest bidder or not? The aforesaid proposition of law was considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Munshi Muhammad's case reported as 1971 SCMR 533 and laid down the following principle:-- "The view formed by the High Court is unexceptionable. Since the auctions in favour of the petitioners were not finally approved, they did not acquire any right in the properties, and had, therefore, no locus standi to ask for their transfer. According to the terms and conditions of the auction itself, the highest bids offered in the auctions were subject to the approval of the Additional Settlement Commissioner concerned, who may or may not accept the bids, without assigning any reasons for his action."
' The above referred proposition of law was taken into consideration by the apex Court in Rehmat Ali's case reported as 1973 SCMR 342. Condition of auction authorizing the higher authorities to confirm or not to confirm the auction of the State land was within the discretion of the respondents and it was approved by the authorities not to confirm the auction. Held---In our opinion the petitioners by giving highest bid have not acquired any legal title in the property in dispute and the mere fact that the auction in their favour has not been confirmed does not give them any right to file a writ petition". Reference can also be had to Meraj Din's case 1970 SCMR 542. The relevant portion is as under:-- "It is conceded by the learned counsel at the Bar that the auction in favour of the petitioner was never confirmed. He was no doubt the highest bidder at the second auction and had also deposited a substantial amount of the auction money, but until the confirmation of the auction was made in his favour by the relevant authority, he did not acquire any right in the property whatsoever. Paragraph 9 of the terms and conditions of the auction of 'building sites' under which the auction in question had been held, provided that the highest bid given by a person could be rejected without assigning any reason for it."
' The aforesaid provision of law was also considered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Babu Pervaiz Qureshi's case in 1974 SCMR 337 and the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:-- "A mere bid at an auction if the bid is subject to confirmation, does not create any contractual right until the bid is confirmed. It is in the discretion of the auctioneer to confirm or not to confirm it."
' On the basis of the aforesaid dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, we are also of the opinion that by giving the highest bid which was not accepted, no legal right to grant the contract in view of the aforesaid conditions in the Brochure, accrued in favour of the appellant.
11. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in clause (g) of the grounds of appeal is not applicable, in the facts and circumstance of the present case. The case reported as Muhammad Bashir and others v. Hakim Ali and another 2000 Law Notes 4111 (Lahore) was a civil revision arising from judgments of Courts below by which suit for specific performance, filed by the respondents, was decreed and appeal of the petitioners was dismissed. The factual position which emerges from that case is that respondents filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement' of sale dated 30-3-1968, against the predecessor of the petitioners, the execution of the agreement was not disputed, the payment of the earliest money was also not a point in issue but the parties were at variance, on the question of the maintainability of the suit and also on the question of limitation. The first objection as to maintainability of the suit was that previously a suit for declaration was filed which was allegedly dismissed and plaintiff-decreeholder was to file a suit for specific performance on the mandate of Order XXIII, rule 1, C.P.C. The Court held that under Order XXIII, rule 1, C.P.C. If the suit is withdrawn, without the permission to bring the fresh one, the subsequent suit on the same cause of action is barred but if the subsequent suit is filed during pendency of earlier suit and earlier suit is withdrawn later, this bar is' not attracted.
12. The case reported as Province of the Punjab through Collector, Sahiwal and another v. Malik Yousaf 1993 MLD 1976 (Lahore) relates to the disposal of four revision petitions preferred by the Province of the Punjab against four different persons. The suit was decreed by Senior Civil Judge on 16-1-1991 and the decrees were affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Sahiwal on 18-6-1992. The Forest Department had offered timber wood for sale, to take place on open auction, notified to the public through press. The auction was held on 13-1-1985 and the respondent being the highest bidder proceeded to deposit the earnest money and formally on 16-1-1985 he was informed about acceptance of his bid and was required to make payment of the remaining price within 30 days. In the meanwhile, at the instance of a third person, who was at liberty to have participated in the auction but had not done so, nullified the auction proceedings. The Court held that the person on whose complaint, the action was nullified was at liberty to have participated in the auction and the auction-purchaser were ready to deposit the amount within the stipulated period. In the instant case balance 25% has not been paid by the appellant within 48 hours in compliance with the condition No,17 of the terms and conditions of the Brochure Exh.P.3.
13. In the case of Fazal Hussain and others v. Malik Muhammad Saeed and others PLD 1995 Lah. 451 the question before the Court was that whether the stipulation about time for performance of different obligations under contract of sale of immovable property are essence of the contract or not? Reference was made to the case of Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yaqoob PLD 1983 SC 344 in this context wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that "Though time is not ordinarily considered as being of the essence of the contract involving transaction of immovable property but the true intention of the parties can be gathered from the terms of the contract and facts and circumstance of the case and mere mention of the time in the contract for its performance does not necessarily mean that time was of the essence". The point, that time is or is not the essence of the contract is not the issue in the pesent case, therefore, by maintaining the finding on Issue No,1, we are of the view that the trial Court had rightly decided this issue against the plaintiff.
14. The second auction was held on 11-10-2000. A preliminary objection i,e, objection 5 was raised that suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable for non-joinder of the proper party as the plot had been auctioned on 11-10-2000 and Messrs Mumtaz Akhtar, Khurshid Alam Chaudhry, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Riaz have been declared highest bidders and they have deposited 25 % of the total bid within 48 hours according to the terms and conditions. Letter dated 14th of March, 2001 Exh.A.W.1/1 shows allotment of the suit plot in favour of the above said persons. On the mandate of Order I, rule 9, C.P.C. No suit can be defeated by reason of the mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties, and the Court may in every suit deal with the matter in controversy so far as the rights and interest of the parties actually before it. Though non-joinder is not fatal yet where there is non-joinder of a necessary party, i,e, a party who ought to have been joined and in whose absence an effective decree cannot be passed, the suit has to be dismissed. See the case cited as 1994 SCMR 2268 and PLD 1982 SC 590.
' In the instant suit Messrs Mumtaz Akhtar, Khurshid Alam, Chaudhry, Muhammad Asghar and Muhammad Riaz in whose favour plot was transferred after acceptance of the highest bid, on failure by the appellant to deposit the requisite balanced amount and in their absence a decree cannot be passed in favour of the appellant, therefore, Issue No,5 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the respondents. The appellant was not entitled for any notice prior to rejection of his bid, because same was not accepted by the competent authority (C.D.A. Board). Clauses 18 and 21 of the terms and conditions do not apply to the case of the appellant. These clauses apply if the bid would have been accepted and allotment letter would have been issued in his favour.
' 14- A. Since the plaintiff was not a lawful auction purchaser of the suit property and enlistment of the suit property in the next auction was quite legal therefore, Issue No,8 was rightly decided in favour of the respondents. It is well-settled rule of law that a judgment which deals with all points raised fulfills the requirements of law even though it may not have discussed each issue separately. See the case cited as Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCMR 1647; Muhammad Arif v. Mrs. Anwar Jehan 2000 SCMR 1960; Mst. Husna Bano alias Mst. Bibi Hussain Bano and others v. Faiz Muhammad through L.Rs, and others 2002 SCMR 667.
' For what has been discussed above, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by recording findings on Issues Nos.1, 5, and 8 against the plaintiff. This being so, this appeal has no merit and therefore, is dismissed with costs.