' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--On 13-6-1991 the respondent filed a suit against the petitioner. In the plaint, it was stated that the land described in para-I thereof was allotted to him by the DLC, Jhang, as a grant vide order dated 2-8-1974. This was incorporated in the revenue records vide Mutation No,1229 attested on 10-6-1989. Consolidation proceedings were effected in the village in the year 1980 and the said land was allocated the Khasras numbers mentioned in Para-2. Of the plaint. The petitioner was also allotted the land mentioned in para-3 of the plaint on 2-8-1974. In July, 1989, the respondent learnt that the petitioner has got mutated the land allotted in favour of the respondent in his favour vide mutation No,683 attested on 24-9-1975. He accordingly sought a declaration and possession of the suit-land. The petitioner in his written statement denied the said allegations.
According to him, the said land was allotted to him by the DLC and the mutation was correctly attested in his favour. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 16-7-1992. A learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot, dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioner on 9-1-1995.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the Khasra numbers mentioned in the mutation in favour of his client have no nexus with the Khasra numbers allotted to the respondent, the later mutation of the same numbers in favour of the respondent is illegal and void. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supports the impugned and decrees with a contention that there is no evidence on record that the suit-land was allotted to the petitioner at any time.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the pleadings of the parties. I may note here that the copies of both the allotment orders as also the mutations were appended by the respondent with his plaint and this finds mention in the plaint as well. There is no plea by the petitioner that as to when the land was allotted to him. I confronted the learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly and he admits that Exh.P.2 is the allotment order in favour of his client. He, however, has tried to argue that some interpolation has been made therein.
4. I have examined the said documents and I do not find any such interpolation therein. It is but evident that the land mentioned in para-1 of the plaint was allotted to the respondent vide order Exh.P.1. There is no dispute that it was this land which was allocated the Khasra numbers mentioned in para. 2 of the plaint in consolidation proceedings and this was the land that was mutated in favour of the respondent vide mutation Exh.P.3. Now Exh.P.4 is the mutation No,683 being relied upon by the petitioner. A bare reading of this document in juxtaposition to allotment orders Exh.P.1 and Exh.P.2. Would show that, in fact, the land allotted to the A respondent vide order Exh. P.1 has been mutated in favour of the petitioner. This being so, the mutation is absolutely illegal.
5. The learned counsel then refers to Exh.D.1 which is the Khatuni Ishtamal whereby the numbers allocated after consolidation were mentioned in favour of his client. I have examined the said document and find the absence of the pre-consolidation number to be rather conspicuous. The reason is obvious that the person who prepared the said Khatuni must have been aware that the pre-consolidation number stands allotted to the respondent. The civil revision is wholly frivolous and is accordingly dismissed with costs.