1. ' MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, J.---The petitioners through instant petition seek setting aside of judgment and decree made on 23-8-2006 by Civil Judge-II, Quetta, whereby the suit filed by respondent No,1 has been decreed in his favour and also order made by Additional District Judge- III, Quetta on 7-8-2007, whereby the appeal filed by them was rejected. It is their contention that both the trial arid appellate courts failed to appreciate to the evidence produced before them, even the evidence of the witness attesting the sale agreement. The material facts were not considered, rather ignored by the courts Below. Further, the principle that mere entries in revenue record are not symbol of ownership; the trial Court relied on the same. It is further contended that the impugned judgments are ambiguous, as they are silent about the official party i,e,, Tehsildar, Quetta.
2. ' As per record respondent No,1/ plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of his title of ownership in respect of property bearing khasra No,1042, Integal No,697, measuring 0-Rods 29 Poles situated at Mohal Viala Kuchlak, Tappa Kuchlak, Tehsil and District Quetta, also prayed for possession of the same. It is his plea that he being sole owner of property in question, but deprived of its possession by the defendants/petitioners B forcibly in year 1998, when he was at Quetta. Despite repeated requests the petitioners/ defendants failed to hand over the possession to him, rather they are trying to deliver possession of the same to some other person for illegal gains. They further prayed for issuance of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants/ petitioners from transferring, alienating or delivering the possession of property in question to anyone or changing the nature of the same. While in their joint reply defendants Nos.2 to 6 present petitioners on merits raised contention that the property in question was sold to defendant No,2/petitioner No,2 by the plaintiff/ respondent No,1, while at the time of sale the plaintiff/respondent No,1 received an amount of Rs,4,50,000 in advance, while remaining amount of Rs,30,000 was agreed to be paid at the time of effecting of mutation, which was promised to be carried out after redeeming of mortgage, as the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 had taken loan against property in question. Further, a sale agreement was also executed between the parties. It is further contended that the possession of property in question was handed over to them by the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 at the time of sale transaction, where after, he/ petitioner No,1 constructed residential building on the same. The replying defendants/ petitioners also raised three legal objections on maintainability of the suit to the effect that the suit is under valued, bad for misjoinder of parties and absence of cause of action. It is further apparent from record that issues were framed, while evidence was called, after completion of evidence from both the sides the trial Court decided the suit through judgment dated 23-8-2006 thereby decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff/respondent No,1 being lawful owner of property in questions, thus entitled for possession of the same Being aggrieved of the decree the petitioners/defendants filed appeal seeking setting aside of judgment of trial Court, which was rejected through order made on 7-8-2007. Both these orders are impugned in present petition.
3. ' As per petitioners the material facts present on record and evidence produced by the parties, especially produced by them are not considered, rather misappreciated by the trial as well as by the appellate Courts. The petitioners in instant petition though have not pointed out the facts and material which are not considered, rather misappreciated by both the courts below. Even during course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners failed to specify such instances. The trial Court before recording evidence framed issues, while deciding the matter discussed the issues separately and give findings on them. As far as legal objections are concerned, which pertains to valuation of suit, non existence of cause of action and misjoinder of parties are concerned, the trial Court decided the issue pertaining to these objections in negative. As far as valuation of suit is concerned, it is an established principle of law that the valuation of the suit for court-fee and jurisdiction as assessed in the plaint by the plaintiff is to be relied upon until proved contrary. In present case the plaintiff/respondent No,1 assessed the valuation of subject matter of the suit as Rs,20000. Though the petitioners/ defendants raised objection in respect of valuation of the suit, but the perusal of evidence reveals that no specific evidence in same respect has come on record.
4. Thus until contrary proved the valuation asserted by the plaintiff is to be relied upon, the learned trial Court has come to the right conclusion. It is further to be added that no suit failed on basis of wrong valuation or on payment of deficit court fee, rather proper opportunity is required to be given to overcome the deficiency and in case of failure the provisions of section-10 paragraph (ii).
5. Of Court Fees Act 1870 shall apply, whereby on non payment of additional fee the suit shall stand dismissed. As far as second legal objection, which is in respect of non existence of cause of action, is concerned, as there is assertion of a right, while there is denial from the other side. The plaintiff/respondent No,1 is/was the owner of property in question from which possession he has been allegedly deprived of by the defendants/petitioners. The trial court rightly decided this issue.
6. ' As per petitioners the judgment of both the courts are not speaking one, as they are silent about official party. This contention is baseless, in case any party has no interest in the matter and does not contest the case, this will not affect the order made in the matter by the court of competent jurisdiction. In present case as the matter in dispute is between the private parties, while no interest of State is seems to be involved in the disputed property, therefore, non-considering of tehsildar is no ground for declaring the impugned orders as nullity in eyes of law.
7. ' As far as merits of the case are concerned, the respondent No, 1/plaintiff claimed himself to be owner of property in question, further claimed his illegal dispossession from the same. While on the other hand the petitioners/defendants though admitted ownership of respondent No,1/ plaintiff, but raised contention that the property in question was sold to petitioner No,2/defendant No,2 (Rahim- ud-Din) by respondent No,1/ plaintiff, a sale agreement was also executed between the parties, wherein it was promised that mutation would be effected after redeeming of mortgage, further at the time of sale an amount of Rs,4,50,000 was paid to the plaintiff/ respondent No,1, while it was agreed that the remaining amount of Rs,30,000 would be paid it the time of effecting of mutation entry. Further, the possession was handed over to defendant No,2/ petitioner No,2 at time of sale agreement, whereupon he constructed a residential building. In view of pleadings of the parties the ownership of the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 is an admitted fact, while it is also an admitted position that the petitioners/defendants were in possession of property in question at time of filing of the suit. As the petitioners/ defendants asserted to be in possession being purchasers of land in question, therefore, the burden lies upon them to establish their title in respect of the same. The perusal of evidence adduced before the trial Court reveals that in order to establish his ownership the plaintiff/ respondent No,1 produced oral evidence, while he also produced mutation entry in his favour through representative of Tehsil. While on the other hand the defendants/ petitioners produced oral evidence and recorded statement through attorney. While only one witness in respect of alleged sale agreement is produced. D .W.4 Saeed Ahmed Advocate/ Notary Public produced sale agreement dated 6-5-2000 as Ex:D/1-A, which was attested by him. During cross- examination he deposed that due to passage of time he is unable to identify the parties to the agreement. Further, the agreement was not executed in his presence; rather he only attested the document which has already been prepared. From cross-examination of this witness these facts are apparent that the NIC numbers of the witnesses and parties are not mentioned on the agreement, the register in which entry of the document was required to be made has not been produced by the witness. Defendant No,2/ petitioner No,2 Rahim-ud-Din recorded his statement on his own behalf and on behalf of remaining defendants as their attorney. According to him they purchased property in question from the plaintiff in consideration of Rs,4,35,000, while an amount of Rs,4,05,000 was paid to the plaintiff at time of transaction, a sale agreement was also executed at said occasion, while remaining Rs,30,000 was to be paid at the time of inteqal. The petitioners/defendants were required to establish the sale transaction effected between the parties and also the document executed between them, as their tide based on it. The witnesses appeared on behalf of defendants/petitioners though asserted to be present at the occasion when sale transaction was held and payment was made, but none of them confirmed presence of the other. Even D.W.3 recognized petitioner No,1 Muhammad Rasool as Ghulam Muhammad. The contradictions in the statement of the witnesses are clearly pointed out by the learned trial Court.
8. Apart from oral evidence the sale agreement is not properly brought on record. The person who wrote it and the witnesses who signed it as witnesses are not produced before the court. Nor even the defendants/petitioners tried to procure their attendance before the court. The said document was also not confronted to the plaintiff/ respondent No,1, while he was appearing in witness box. It is to be noted that the petitioners have failed to file all the relevant record along with the revision petition. The exhibited documents are not filed before this court, while the statement of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 and cross-examination to the statement of defendant No,2 attorney of defendants are also not filed.
9. ' It is to be noted that during course of pendency of present petition an application for stay of execution proceedings was filed, whereby through order made on 3-6-2008, the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Thereafter, it was intimated to the court that on 15-5-2008 the possession of property in question was already handed over to respondent No,1 being the decree holder. The relevant report of. Civil Nazir Quetta dated 21-5-2008 is also placed on record, whereby it has been reported that the possession of property in question is handed, over to the decree holder/ respondent No, 1 . The petitioners rather their counsel made misstatement before the court and also obtained order in same respect. The conduct of counsel for the petitioners is objectionable, for which he is warned to be remain careful in future.
10. ' Respondent No,1 filed an application bearing No,1709 on 22-10-2009, requesting for placing on record certain documents. He filed certified copy of report of Civil Nazir. Quetta dated 21-5-2008. An order made on 19-8-2008 by Judicial Magistrate-IV, Quetta, whereby bail is granted in favour of respondent No,1 (Abdul Ghafoor). Another order dated 14-7-2009 made by Judicial Magistrate-11, Quetta, whereby the accused/ respondent No,2 was acquitted of the charge under section 379, P.P.C. In respect of F.I.R. No,136 of 2008 Police Station Civil Lines, Quetta. The perusal of this order reveals that an incident was reported by one Haji Muhammad Rasool on 6-8-2008 which was occurred on 27-5-2006, wherein the accused/ respondent No,2 snatched the stamp paper written in respect of a house, which was intended to be produced in a civil case filed by him (complainant) on his way to the court. It is to be noted that complainant of said case is petitioner No,1, while accused is respondent No,1 of present case, while it seems that the stamp alleged therein is the sale agreement of present case. Another judgment dated 17-8-2009 made by Civil Judge-III, Quetta in civil suit titled as (Rahim-ud-Din v. Abdul Ghafoor and another is also filed. The perusal of this judgment reveals that present petitioner No,2 filed said suit in respect of same sale transaction of property in question, which was dismissed by the trial court being hit by section 11, C.P.C. From these documents it can safely be presumed that the petitioners are only making efforts to avoid the decree passed against them and in favour of respondent No,1 in year 2006.
11. 'In view of above discussion the petitioners have completely failed to make out any case for revision of the impugned judgments, which are hereby upheld. The present petition is dismissed being without merits.
12. ' No order as to costs.