MUHAMMAD NASEEM AKHTAR KHAN, J.---The petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order dated 10-12-2003 passed by the learned Additional District Judge Gujrat in appeal, which resulted in the acceptance of the appeal and setting aside the order dated 16-10-2003, passed by the learned Civil Judge Gujrat, in which the plaint of the suit titled Muhammad Hussain v.
Muhammad Afzal Shah etc, suit for declaration along with consequential relief, was rejected.
2. Briefly, stated the facts of the case, are that the respondent filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief on 24-10-2001, when the petitioners filed two separate written statements, one by petitioners Nos.1, 4 and 5 and the other by petitioners Nos.2 and 3. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C., which was replied and the learned Civil Judge who proceeded to accept the application and rejected the plaint vide order dated 16-3-2003. The respondent filed an appeal, which was accepted vide order dated 10-12-2003 by the learned Additional District Judge Gujrat and the case was remanded back to be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that only contents of the plaint can be seen while deciding the application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. and no alien circumstances of the plaint can be considered. The original case of the respondent is that he purchased the property in dispute from Ali Asghar Shah predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, in 1994, for a consideration of Rs,37,700 and constructed a house on the same consisting of ten rooms, kitchen, bath, water pump, and four walls by spending a .huge amount of Rs,6.00/7.00 Lacs in 1995, after filling the earth in the disputed plot and since then he is residing in the same. The said Ali Asghar Shah died in 1999, and the petitioners/successors of said Ali Asghar Shah have changed their mind and they have refused to transfer the property in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff, which constrained the respondent to file a suit for declaration with consequential relief on 24-10-2001. The contention of the petitioners is that Muhammad Hussain-respondent was their Moeen and he was allowed to reside in the property in dispute by their predecessor-in -interest temporarily and now he has come forward with a suit just on the instigation of the opponent of the petitioners. The learned counsel has relied on the itself cases reported in 1981 SCM R 878, 1992 M LD 225, 2000 SCM R 1305; PLD 2001 SC 499, 2001 M LD 401 and 2002 SCM R 361, in support of his contention that the suit in is barred by law as well as not maintainable on the face of it.
4. Conversely the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the respondent is residing in the property in dispute after construction of a house since 1995. The electricity connection is in his name but the petitioners are out to disturb him with mala tide. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the cases reported in PLD 1991 SC 905, 2001 CLC 899 and 2003 CLC 335 Lahore in support of his contention.
5. Arguments heard. Record Perused.
6. After considering the respective contention of the parties, it is found that there is no denial of the fact that the respondent is not residing in the property in dispute after construction of a big house.
The respondent continued his possession in the life of Ali Asghar Shah predecessor-in -interest of the petitioners and he never objected or interfered in his life time up till 1999. After his death the petitioners/ successors interfered and respondent was constrained to file the suit, which is quite within three years from the death of Ali Asghar Shah. There is factual controversy between the parties and mere technical C knockout will not serve the purpose. This case requires thorough and full fledge inquiry so that rights of the parties are adjudged effectively. The technical provisions/rules of procedure are not meant to knockout the parties from claiming their rights. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled Imtiaz Ahmad v. Ghulam Ali cited as PLD 1963 SC 382 observed as under:-- "The proper place of procedure in any system of administration of, justice is to help and not to thwart the grant to the people of their. rights. All technicalities have to be avoided unless it be essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy Any system which by giving effect to the form and not the substance defeats substantive right (and) is defective to that extent."
7. This revision petition was filed on 8-3-2004 and the proceedings of the trial Court were stayed on 31-3-2004, otherwise the suit would have been decided on merits up till date after recording the evidence of the parties. The revision petition in hand is without any merits. Hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.