TARIQ JAVAID, J. --- It is contended that the petitioner is bona fide, purchaser for value of Plot No 86-D situated at Katuchi Abadi Scheme, Chak No. 212/RB, Factory Area, Faisalabad. It is maintained that the petitioner is owner in possession since 1977. It is further maintained that the possession of the property was handed over to him by the vendor after receiving total consideration and since then the suit property is in his possession.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents maintained that he is allottee of the suit property whereas the petitioner does not possess any document of title of the suit property nor the same has been allotted to the petitioner. The respondent is deprived from using the property due to the illegal possession of the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner instituted the suit for permanent injunction to the effect that he is owner in possession of the suit property. The same was resisted by the respondents and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:---
(1) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present suit? OPD
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for allotment of plot No. 86/D as prayed for? OPP
(5) Relief.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners- pointed out that the suit was filed on 18.6.1993 and predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners died on 12.9.1997. According to the, learned counsel for the petitioners the legal heirs had no knowledge of the proceedings, which were conducted by the attorney appointed by their predecessor-in-interest and had the learned counsel for the petitioners informed the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff about proceedings they would have produced evidence in support of their claim. However, admittedly the appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court was filed by the legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff and no such ground was agitated in appeal. If the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was true then the petitioner ought to have raised this plea before the first Appellate Court. At this belated stage it appears to be an after-thought. It is also established on record that the evidence of the plaintiff had already been concluded during the life-time of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Therefore, their claim that present petitioners could have produced any better evidence does not appeal to the mind.
5. The parties produced their evidence oral as well as documentary and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed. On appeal the learned first Appellate Court after having considered the submissions made by the 'parties was pleased to uphold the decree passed by the learned Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned judgments have been passed without considering the evidence on record. The findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on misreading of evidence and that the impugned judgment and decree suffer from material irregularity.
6. The perusal of record does not reveal that the impugned judgments suffer from any illegality.
The petitioner has not been able to show any proof of the ownership of the property in dispute. The mere assertion that he had purchased it in the sum of Rs. 4,600/- and is in possession of the receipt does not make him owner of the suit property, as the respondent has produced the allotment letters and has supported his assertion by documentary as well as oral evidence.
Admittedly, name of the petitioner was registered as resident of Katchi Abadi in the revenue record, however the petitioner has failed to show that he is in possession of the document of title of the property or that in any other manner was entitled to allotment of the same. The petitioner has not been able to establrsh his claim nor has been able to show any illegality committed by the Courts below. The revision is dismissed.
Civil 'revision .