' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.--- Facts leading to this civil revision are that the FDA, allotted Plot No,56 to the predecessor of Ghulam Fatima-respondent etc. But subsequently the said allotment was not actualized forcing them to file a suit for declaration. The FDA, contested the said suit; certain issues were framed, evidence was recorded from both sides and finally the suit was dismissed. Dismissal of the suit was challenged in appeal on the ground that findings of the learned trial Court on issue No,2 were erroneous, based on conjectures and surmises and the learned Civil Judge did not apply its independent mind. The appeal was allowed and the suit of Ghulam Fatima etc. Was decreed as prayed for with costs through judgment and decree dated 3-1-2007. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned judgment is totally contrary to the facts; record, amounting to misreading and non-reading of evidence. Further submits that D. W.1 i,e, the Assistant Director, Katchi Abadi, Faisalabad Development Authority stated in clear words that Survey No,27/B is not existed and Survey No,27 is in the name of Raza Saleem son of Muhammad Saleem, Survey No,27/B is not available in the record but this important piece of evidence was misread by the learned Additional District Judge.
2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents stood behind the impugned judgment and decree.
3. Heard.
4. The conduct of the present petitioners is very much reflected from Para-7 of the impugned judgment wherein the learned Additional District Judge, pointed out that the respondents/present petitioners' counsel did not put his appearance to argue at a number of times, last opportunity was granted once again last opportunity was granted but no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional District Judge, was left with no other option except to decide the appeal on the basis of available record. This type of attitude of the petitioners speaks something else. The following findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, are not controverted by the petitioners' learned counsel even today and which are useful to, be reproduced as under:-- "Burden to prove issue No,2 was on the appellants. They produced Zulfiqar Ali, Record-Keeper FDA, Faisalabad as P.W.1, who deposed that as per his record, Survey No,27/B available in the Court was in the name of Ghulam Muhammad son of Ali Muhammad i,e, predecessor of appellants, which was made on 7-5-1986, that the predecessor of the appellants was held entitled by the department for allotment. He produced copy of survey register Exh.P.1. This P.W. Was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for the respondents. Two of the appellants namely Tariq Mehmood and Abdul Rasheed appeared as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively, who supported the plaint.
They were cross-examined but nothing material could be brought out from their cross- examination. A bare perusal of their cross-examination reveals that except putting some formal questions, no effort was made by the learned counsel for the respondents to thrash out some favourable information to the respondents or to shake their credibility. To rebut the evidence of the appellants, the respondents produced only one D.W. Namely Muhammad Sharif Amin, Assistant Director FDA who stated that as per record, Survey No,27/B was not available in the survey register.
He did not produce in evidence the copy of register brought by him. He admitted that Zulfiqar Ali, P.W.1 had been working under him as Junior Clerk. He stated during the cross-examination that he was not able to tell whether Exh.P.1. Was authenticated or attested by his department or not.
Learned trial Court while giving its finding on issue No,2 observed that though it is proved by the appellants that the name of their predecessor was entered in the Survey No,27/B Katchi Abadi, Mohallah Usman Abad, but they had not been able to prove that any allotment was made. It is the case of the appellants that their predecessor kept on approaching the respondents for allotment of plot but the matter was delayed at the part of the respondents by one pretext or the other. On this aspect, P.W.2 and P.W.3 gave their statements but nothing material was put to them during the cross-examination. The main emphasis on the cross-examination of P.W.2 and P.W.3 was that Survey No,27/B did not exist at all. Even no suggestion was put to the P.Ws. Regarding the false promise, alleged by them to their father. Learned trial Court was thus not justified in non-suiting the appellants on mere hypothesis. The fact that the main defence taken by the respondents has been turned down by the Court. The appellants should have been given due benefit of the same coupled with the fact that they were not cross-examined on material particulars which amounted to admission on the part of the respondents. The findings of the learned trial Court on issue No,2 are therefore, reversed and issue is decided in favour of the appellants."
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at length could not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree. The jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is also limited.
' The civil revision having no force is dismissed.