' MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.--- Akbar Nawaz Shah son of Jahan Shah has filed this revision petition challenging the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Bannu in Civil Appeal No,36 of 2006 decided on 19-3-2007 through which, while accepting the appeal of respondents Nos.1 and 2 set aside the judgment and decree of Nisar Muhammad Khan, Civil Judge No,IV, Bannu in Civil Suit No,10/1 decided on 12-6-2006 and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/petitioner.
2. Briefly narrated the facts of the case are that petitioner Akbar Nawaz Shah brought a suit for declaration to the effect that he and defendants/respondents Nos.5 and 6 are the owners in possession of land measuring 12 Kanals, 1 Marla situated in Khata No,1266 Khasra Nos.5693, 5699, 5944, 5955, 5700, 5697 as per Jamabandi 1996/97, situated in the revenue estate of Mumniq Khail Now Ghari, Tehsil and District Bannu and the wrong entries in the name of Muhammad Zahir Shah deceased, predecessor of defendant-respondents Nos.1 and 2 are wrong, illegal and ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff-petitioner and pro forma defendants-respondents Nos.5 and 6.
3. It was further alleged that the said Muhammad Zahir Shah had sold his entitlement in favour of Zahir Khan son of Mazullah Khan defendant-respondent No,6 vide Mutation No,15972 attested on 3- 12-1966 and now defendant No,6 is the owner and the wrong entries incorporated in the Jamabandi for the year 2001-02 are incorrect and not binding on the plaintiff and defendants Nos.5 and 6.
4. Defendants were summoned out of whom defendants Nos.1 and 2 contested the suit and filed written statements, out of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:--- ' Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action? OPP ' Whether plaintiff has come to the Court with clean hands? OPD Whether suit of the plaintiff is time-barred? OPD ' Whether plaintiff is estopped to sue by his own conduct? OPD ' Whether suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of the necessary party? OPD
(6) Whether defendants are entitled to compensatory cost under section 35-A C.P.C.? OPD,
(7) Whether suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in its -present form? OPD
(8) Whether suit property is the ownership and in possession of plaintiffs and pro forma defendants? OPP
(9) Whether the ancestor of the defendants Nos.1 and 2 namely Muhammad Zaher Shah sold his share in the suit property to the pro forma defendant No,6 Zaher Khan, through Mutation No,15972 dated 3-12-1966, and the same was incorporated in the Fard Jamabandi for the year 1981-82? OPP
(10) Whether the name of Muhammad Zaher Shah the ancestor of the defendants Nos.1 and 2 is wrongly incorporated in the Fard Jamabandi for the year 1996-97 and onward? OPP
(11) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for in the heading of the plaint? OPP
(12) Relief.
5. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce and the learned Civil Judge after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties and considering the data available on the record decreed the suit of the plaintiff/petitioner vide judgment and decree in Suit No,10/1 dated 12-6-2006. Feeling aggrieved defendant-respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed appeal in the Court of District judge, Bannu and the learned District Judge, Bannu Mr. Amen Zia accepted the appeal vide judgment and decree in Civil Appeal No,36 of 2006 decided on 19-3-2007 and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff petitioner hence, Akbar Nawaz Shah has filed the instant revision petition.
6. Mr. Akbar Nawaz Shah present in person. However, his counsel namely Umar Khan, Advocate, Bannu is absent in spite of service and the petitioner stated that he was duly asked to argue the case but he refused to appear before the Court to attend the proceedings and argue the case.
7. Mr. Akbar Nawaz Shah petitioner submitted that he had challenged the wrong entries in the name of Muhammad Zahir Shah predecessor of defendant-respondents Nos.1 and 2 and had proved on record that vide Mutation No,15972 attested on 3-12-1966 he had sold his share in the suit-land in favour of Zahir Khan defendant-respondent No,6 and due to wrong entries in the subsequent Jamabandi his name was entered in the Revenue Record which was liable to be corrected. The learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit of plaintiff/petitioner, while the learned District Judge, Bannu has without taking into consideration evidence available on the record wrongly and without any justification accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the petitioner. It was also argued, that the adverse entries would not affect the right of defendant- respondent No,6 as he is in possession of his entitlement.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and has perused the record minutely. Perusal of the record would reveal that as far as the share of the plaintiff is concerned that is intact. The petitioner challenges a mutation which has been entered and attested on behalf of Muhammad Zahir Shah predecessor of respondents Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant/ respondent No,6. It is very strange that Zahir Khan defendant/respondent No,6 has never brought any suit on the basis of this Mutation nor he had appeared before the Court to record his statement to own the said mutation. Furthermore, Zahir Khan defendant/respondent No,6 has never opted to be transposed to the panel of the plaintiffs in order to base his claim on the said Mutation. A.D.K. Haqdar Khan has appeared as D.W.2 and he has produced Mutation No,5324 attested on 26-1-1965 copy Exh.D.W.3/DX-1 vide which Janan Shah had gifted some land in favour of Muhammad Zahir Shah defendant/respondents predecessor and Akbar Nawaz Shah plaintiff/petitioner and Zahir Khan son of Mazullah Khan defendant/respondent No,6 which Mutation has remained unchallenged on the record and the learned District Judge, Bannu has rightly held that the said Mutation bearing No,15972 dated 3-12-1966 allegedly attested on behalf of Muhammad Zahir Shah predecessor of defendants/respondents Nos.1 and 2 in favour of Muhammad Zahir Khan defendant-respondent No,6 was never made the basis of the claim by Zahir Khan and thus, regarding this Mutati6n, the petitioner had neither any locus standi nor a cause of action to challenge. The share of petitioner is intact and the aggrieved persor. Was Zahir Khan to have come forward and had based his claim on the mutation and had sought for declaration of his title. The learned appellate Court has rightly scanned the evidence on record and no misreading or non-reading of evidence has been pointed out on the record of the case.
9. So in view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above there is no force in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
' However, if Muhammad Zahir Khan defendant/respondent. No,6 is aggrieved from any wrong entry in the Revenue Record pursuant to the impugned Mutation adversely affecting his rights would be at liberty to challenge , the same if so advised in the matter. Copy of this judgment be sent to District Judge, Bannu for making it a part of the record of Civil Suit No,10/1 decided on 12-2- 2006 titled Akbar Nawaz Shah v. Muhammad Zahir Shah and others.