MUHAMMAD ALAM KHAN, J.---This Civil Revision is the outcome of judgment and decree dated 10- 3-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu in Civil Appeal No,24/13 wherein the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu, while accepting the appeal of respondents, set-aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge-I, Bannu dated 31-1-2003, hence, the instant civil revision petition.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in respect of the same subject matter, two suits bearing Nos.
78/1 Nim of 2002 and 79/1 Nim of 2002 with original institution of year, 1995 were pending adjudication before the learned trial Court wherein both the parties were seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the property fully detailed in the heading of their respective plaints. On service, both the parties put their appearance before the Court and submitted their respective written statement denying the allegations of each other and asserting their respective claims. When on 5-3-2002 Suit No,79/2002 was consolidated with Suit No,78/2002 the following consolidated issues were framed:-
(1) Whether plaintiffs Shah Nawaz Khan etc. Have got a cause of action?
(2) Whether plaintiff Sardar Khan etc. Have got a cause of action?
(3) Whether suit of the plaintiff Shah Nawaz Khan etc. Is time-barred?
(4) Whether suit of the plaintiff Sardar Khan is time barred?
(5) Whether the suit property in case titled "Shah Nawaz etc. v. Sardar" was given in private partition to the predecessor in interest of Sardar etc. In the year, 1905-06 and later on when dispute arose between the predecessor in interest of the disputed parties, predecessor in interest of Sardar were declared owner on the basis of Oath administered to them but mutation could not be entered and attested in their names due to refusal of the predecessor of the plaintiffs?
(6) Whether suit property in case titled "Shah Nawaz etc. v. Sardar" is in ownership, possession of the plaintiffs since long and in the year, 1995, defendants Nos.1 to 13 forcibly took possession of the suit-land and cultivated Rabi crops in it and incorporated their names in Girdawri of the year, 1995 for the first time?
(7) Whether the suit-land in case titled "Sardar Khan. v. Shah Nawaz etc." is ownership in possession of the plaintiffs since long?
(8) Whether the suit-land was declared ownership of the predecessor of the plaintiffs in the year, 1905-06 on the basis of Oath administered to them?
(9) Whether the suit-land in case titled "Sardar Khan v. Shah Nawaz etc." was declared ownership in possession of the predecessor of defendants in the year, 1908 and mutation to this effect was attested in favour of him in the year, 1910 bearing No,459 attested on 27-2-1910?
(10) Whether the suit property in the case titled "Sardar Khan v. Shah Nawaz etc." is ownership in possession of defendant since 1910?
(11) Whether the plaintiffs in case titled "Shah Nawaz v. Sardar" are entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(12) Whether plaintiff in case titled "Sardar v. Shah Nawaz etc." is entitled to the decree as prayed for?
(13) Relief
3. Both the parties led their pro and contra evidence. Thus, at the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court while getting convinced with stance of plaintiffs of Suit No,79 of 2002 decreed the same which also resulted in dismissal of Suit No,78 of 2002.
4. The plaintiffs of Suit No,78 of 2002 being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 31-1- 2003 passed by learned Civil Judge-I, Bannu challenged its validity before the appellate Court of Additional District Judge-IV, Bannu by filing Civil Appeal No,23/13 of 2004 and the learned appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the data available on record, vide judgment and decree dated 10-3-2004, accepted the appeal and while setting aside the judgment of civil Judge/trial Court, granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents.
5. Feeling aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 10-3-2004 passed by appellate Court, the petitioners have challenged the same before this Court on the strength of captioned civil revision petition.
6. Sardar Allah Nawaz Khan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents at the outset raised a preliminary objection to the effect that once a Court passes an indivisible decree in favour of a party, then all the parties, against whom the decree has been passed, must be arrayed on the panel of the respondents and in case of omission of some of the respondents the appeal or revision will be incompetent on this score. Reliance in this respect was placed on the judgments handed down in the cases of Musma r and another v. Khairullah and another (PLD 1954 Peshawar 52) and Shah Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Bakhsh (PLD 1972 SC 321). Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel submitted that a joint and indivisible decree was passed by the learned appellate Court in favour of Shah Nawaz Khan etc., respondents Nos.1 to 23, and against the petitioner and Raees Khan and others (respondents Nos.2 to 21) in the main appeal filed by Shahnawaz etc, the petitioner has not arrayed respondents Nos.2 to 16 nor these respondents have filed separate revision petition, so, the omission of these respondents from the panel of respondents has rendered the revision petition incompetent.
7: On merits, it was argued that Gulyar, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents had become the owner of the suit-land vide Mutation No,459 attested on 27-10-1910 and since the purchase of the suit-land, Gulyar and thereafter his offspring are repeatedly recorded in the revenue record as owners till 1995 and thereafter the defendants-respondents took forcible possession which culminated into proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. It was argued that the learned trial Court, for no valid reasons, brushed this mutation ' aside on the sole ground that it does not bear the thumb- impression of vendor and learned appellate Court has rightly passed a decree in favour of the respondents and the cross-suit of the petitioner bearing No,79/1 Nim of 2002 has rightly been dismissed.
8, As against this, Mr. Rustam Khan Kundi, learned counsel for the petitioner while rebutting the arguments that the nonimpleadment of some of the respondents in the revision petition was not fatal to make this revision petition incompetent as the decree has been passed by the appellate Court against the petitioner only and he has filed the instant revision petition. It was also argued that if certain parties are omitted, the appellate or revisional Court has got the jurisdiction to implead those omitted respondents in the revision petition.
' Thus, it was argued that the revision petition is competent on merits. It was submitted that the petitioner was the owner of the suit land and since 1905-1906 he is coming in continuous possession of the suit-land as it was given to him on the basis of special Oath which his forefathers had taken on the Holy Quran and thus, the appellate Court was not justified to non-suit him.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the facts of the case as well as legal points involved and have considered the valuable arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record on the file.
10. Perusal of the record reveals that respondents Nos.1 to 23 Shah Nawaz Khan etc., had filed the suit against Sardar Khan and 12 others which was dismissed by the trial Court against which Shah Nawaz Khan and others filed Civil Appeal No,24/13 of 2003/2004 in which not only Sardar Khan was arrayed as respondent, but besides him, Raees Khan etc., respondents Nos.2 to 21, were also parry before the appellate Court. In revision petition, respondents Nos.2 to 16 were arrayed in the main appeal but they were not made party in the instant revision petition and thus, the appellate Court passed in indivisible decree against Sarwar respondent and against the omitted respondents. This is a joint decree and the non-impleadment of respondents Nos.2 to 16, who were parties before the appellate Court, will render the revision petition incompetent. This is half a century ,old proposition of law followed by the superior Court that where the decree is indivisible and some of the parties are omitted, then the appeal or revision is incompetent in view of the dicta handed down in the cases of Maqbool Begum etc., v. Ghulan and others (PLD 1982 SC 46), Kashmir v. Amir Bahadur etc., (2001 MLD Peshawar 1765), Muhammad Suleman v. Abdul Rashid and 13 others (PLD 1987 Lahore- 387) and Subah Sadiq v. Mst. Rajehan through L.Rs, (PLD 2006' Lahore 585) the instant revision petition is incompetent and is liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
11. Even on merits, the petitioner has got no case as the claim of the petitioner is based on taking Oath by his forefathers on the Holy Quran, but no evidence has been led to prove such proceedings. On the other hand, respondents Nos.1 to 23 claim the suit-land on the basis of Mutation No,423 attested on 27-2-1910 and on the basis of which they and their forefathers are recorded continuously in possession of the same. Furthermore, this mutation is incorporated till Jamabandi for the years, 1994-95 and the dispute arose between the parties which culminated in proceedings under section 145, Cr.P.C. This is the cardinal principle of law that the revenue record and Jamabandi have got presumption of correctness unless and until rebutted. Burden heavily lies on petitioner to dislodge this presumption which he failed to discharge. About a century old revenue D record cannot be set-aside on surmises and conjectures as held in the dicta handed down in the cases of Muhammad Hussain and others v. Khuda Bakhsh, 1989 SCMR 1563 and Ghulam Hassan v. Soharu and 131 others PLD 1984 Peshawar 278).
12. The judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court is perfectly sound, just and in accordance with the established principles of appreciation of evidence. No misreading or non- reading has been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner to warrant interference by this Court in revision petition.
13. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, there is no force in this revision petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.