' ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.---Facts giving rise to filing of the captioned civil revision by petitioner LDA are that respondent Ch. Ilam Din instituted a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that he participated in the auction proceedings conducted by petitioner with reference to Plot No,112-B, Block B-III Jauhar Town Scheme Lahore on 28-11-2001, and declared as the highest bidder. And in compliance of the terms of auction, deposited 20% of the total amount same day.
According to the terms of auction as circulated in the press the remaining amount was to be deposited by respondent after issuance of confirmation letter by the petitioner. Further maintained that petitioner also auctioned Plots No,93, 93-A and 93-B Block E in Phase-1 MA Jauhar Town Lahore on 21-11-2001 and the auction thereof was confirmed by the petitioner and the possession of the said plot after receiving the remaining amount was also delivered to auction-purchaser. Lastly contended that petitioner despite being the highest bidder, and having deposited 20% of the total amount, was not issued the confirmation letter in compliance of the terms of the auction as circulated in the press. Rather was informed after lapse of a considerable period i.e,, on 14-5-2003 that his bid had been cancelled.
2. Annulment of the order was prayed for on the ground that notice, dated 14-5-2003 purportedly issued by the petitioner was totally illegal, unlawful discriminatory and without any lawful authority and legal effect and against the principles of natural justice.
3. Petitioner in response to the notice appeared before the trial Court firstly on 23-7-2003 and the case was adjourned for filing written reply on behalf of the LDA and on 29-9-2003, the petitioner was granted last opportunity to file written statement but it neither filed the written statement nor entered appearance with the result that civil court having no other option but to proceed ex parte against the petitioner, who filed the application for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 15-11- 2003 but the same was also dismissed and thereafter the learned trial Court after recording ex parte evidence and hearing arguments on behalf of respondent, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 25-5-2005. It is pointed out here that petitioner after dismissal of the application for setting aside ex parte order did not avail any further remedy and waited till 25-5- 2005 when the judgment and decree was passed by the trial Court. However the petitioner filed an appeal impugning said judgment and decree but the same was dismissed by the learned Judge of the first appellate Court vide judgment and decree impugned, dated 24-9-2004. Hence, this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that judgments and decrees of both the courts below are not only against the facts and record of the case but also against the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not given fair opportunity to defend the suit. Further contends that according to the terms and conditions of the auction, the petitioner availed his right under the law to accept or cancel any auction, so the authority rightly exercised its jurisdiction and rejected the bid of the respondent. Next contends that although the petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the application for setting said order was also dismissed, yet the respondent was required to prove his case through unimpeachable and credible evidence, whereas the respondent could not adduce any evidence in support of his contentions and badly failed to prove his case, so the findings of the courts below are not only erroneous but result of misreading and non-reading of evidence.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent contends that both the courts below concurrently concluded that order of the petitioner/authority cancelling the auction bid of the respondent is not legal and valid. Adds that concurrent findings of both the courts below cannot be interfered with and evidence cannot be reappraised at revisional stage. Reliance is placed on PLD 1994 SC 291, 2001 SCM R 798 and 2006 SCM R 50. It is also contended that auction bid of the respondent was rejected after a considerable lapse of period and admittedly no opportunity of hearing or any notice prior to that was issued in the name of the respondent. Further contends that petitioner on the same day out of the same publication, auctioned aforementioned plots in favour of Commander Nazir Ahmed and subsequently possession was also handed over to him after receiving the remaining amount, whereas, auction bid of the respondent was cancelled unilaterally in a discriminate manner. Next added that there is no rebuttal on behalf of the petitioner and even the petitioner did not challenge the order of the trial Court, whereby the application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed, hence, petitioner on account of his own conduct is not entitled for any relief at this stage through invocation of jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused. Admitted facts between the parties are that the plot in question along with other plots was put to auction by the petitioner; that respondent participated in the auction proceedings and being the highest bidder, he deposited 20% of the total consideration in compliance with the terms of the auction and that the auction was cancelled after a period of one and a half year without issuing any notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the respondent. That petitioner handed over possession of the plots of Commander Nazir Ahmed having received the remaining amount in pursuance of the auction held on the said day, and that plot in question is still available at site. Petitioner initially participated and joined proceedings but subsequently opted not to appear before the trial Court with the result that ex parte proceedings were ordered. Although an application for setting aside ex parte order was filed, but after its dismissal no further remedy available under the law was availed, and the persons at the helm of affairs kept on waiting till the final outcome of the case. It is also admitted by the petitioner when confronted that other auction purchasers have been accommodated by the petitioner by delivering the possession of the plots reflected above. So there is no cavil with the fact that petitioner LDA treated the respondent in a discriminate manner. Further there is no rebuttal on behalf of the petitioner even at the revisional stage to place on record any type of documentary evidence, so it can safely be said that petitioner had nothing to rebut the contentions of the A respondent. Both the courts below concurrently concluded that respondent is entitled for the plot purchased by him in auction, and the notice/letter whereby auction bid of the respondent was cancelled by the petitioner, is declared unwarranted, without jurisdiction and having no legal effect qua the rights of the respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner failed to point out any ambiguity, illegality, irregularity and jurisdictional defect. This Court is fortified in this view by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported as 2006 SCM R 50 that concurrent finding on a question of fact or the mixed question of law and fact cannot be interfered with, if the same are not the result of jurisdictional defect. It was further held that at the revisional stage while exercising jurisdiction under section 115, C.P C, re- examination or reappraisal of evidence is not permissible even if the conclusion drawn by the subordinate courts on a question of fact is erroneous.
8. For the foregoing facts and reasons, judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are totally unexceptionable and not open to any interference and invalidation with the result that this petition being palpably misconceived is discussed accordingly.
9. It is highly deplorable on the part of petitioner that notwithstanding large number of legal experts in its legal branch, but strangely, even none of them ever bothered to challenge the order passed by the learned trial Court, whereby the application for setting aside ex parte order was dismissed, and till date none has been taken to task. Copy of this order be transmitted to the D.G. LDA so as to evolve a workable strategy for streamlining the state of affairs prevalent in the legal branch under his administrative control.