1. ORDER BIN YAMIN, J.---This order will dispose of this civil revision application made under section 115, C.P.C. On behalf of Muhammad Ashraf son of Muhammad Hussain.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 1 Muhammad Akbar had filed suit in the Court of IVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi for declaration, injunction and possession with regard to Plot No.N-913, Sector 6-J/1, Junejo Town, near Manzoor Colony, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the disputed property). The claim of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in that suit was based on leasehold rights of the disputed plot issued in favour of the plaintiff by K.D.A. The number of said suit was 368/1999 (Muhammad Akbar v. Government of Sindh and others). The learned Senior Civil Judge proceeded with the matter and finally dismissed the suit of respondent No. 1 under his judgment dated 30-9- 2005 and decree dated 7-10-2005.
3. Feeling aggrieved with the afore-noted judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, respondent No.1 preferred appeal before the District Judge, Karachi East being Appeal No. 160 of 2005 (Muhammad Akbar v. Government of Sindh and others). The appeal was transferred by the learned District Judge, Karachi East to the Court of Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi East for its disposal according to law. After hearing the parties, the learned A.D.J. Reversed the order of the trial Court and decreed the suit of respondent No. 1 by allowing the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 24-12-2007 and 8-1-2008 respectively.
4. Applicant Muhammad Ashraf who claims to be in possession of the disputed property as its owner felt aggrieved with the order of the Appellate Court, therefore, he submitted an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Before the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi East with the prayer that as the judgment and decree have been obtained by practicing fraud upon the Court and misrepresentation of the facts, therefore his application may be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi East, as mentioned above, may be set aside.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Vth A.D.J., Karachi East dismissed the application of the applicant made under section 12(2), C.P.C. Vide his order dated 29-3-2008.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order of Vth A.D.J. Karachi East, the applicant has preferred this civil revision application.
7. Heard Advocate for the applicant as well as Advocate for respondent No. 1, so also perused the case papers.
8. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the plot in question is situated in Junejo Town, a scheme of the then Prime Minister Muhammad Khan Junejo which was initiated for providing houses to the "Mustahqeen of zakat". He further submitted that on the plot in question construction only upto plinth level was raised but the applicant, by spending considerable amount from his on pocket, has raised construction thereon. His further contention is that the applicant was neither made party in the original suit filed by Muhammad Akbar before the Court of Senior Civil Judge nor in the Court of learned A.D.J., Karachi East, therefore, the order passed against him is without affording opportunity of being heard and is in violation of principles of natural justice. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned order may be set aside and this revision application may be allowed and matter may A be remanded to the Trial Court for its fresh decision after hearing both the parties.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has opposed this civil revision application and submitted that the plot in question is situated in Junejo Town but it is the property of the K.D.A., which has allotted the same to respondent No. 1 under valid document. As the plot in question was illegally occupied by one Syed Naqvi son of not known and the present applicant appeared in the Trial Court and participated in the proceedings under his on name i.e. Muhammad Ashraf. Subsequently the said suit was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karachi East. However thereafter the applicant did not agitate the matter during the pendency of the appeal before the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi East. After the said appeal was decided by the learned Vth A.D.J., the applicant filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. For setting aside that order on the ground of fraud etc. As mentioned above. According to him, the applicant has neither any character nor any right to remain in possession of the plot in question as there is no title document issued in his favour. Unless the applicant establishes his character/right with regard to the plot in question, he cannot claim the possession of the same. He referred to one letter available on the record at page 99 (Annexure A/4), dated 1-7-1999. According to this letter, the applicant was directed by the Chairman, District Zakat and Ushr Committee to appear before that Committee on 12-8-1999 and to produce title documents, if any, with regard to the plot in question so that his status may be determined. However, the applicant appeared before that Committee but till date he has not been issued any title document. He, therefore, requests that as the applicant is not in possession of any title documents in respect of the plot in question, therefore, the order of the Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi East is in accordance with law and does not suffer from any illegality or misreading of non-reading or the evidence, therefore the instant revision application having no merits, is liable to be dismissed.
10. I have considered the contentions raised at the bar and have also gone through the material available on the record.
11. Except one show-cause notice to produce his title documents with regard to the plot in question, there is no other document available on the record to show that the applicant has any title to remain in possession of the plot in question. On the contrary, respondent No. 1 has produced transfer/allotment order of the plot in question issued by K.D.A authorities and on the basis of this document the learned Additional District Judge has allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1.
12. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appellate Court has not committed any illegally while passing the impugned order. The applicant has to establish his right to remain in possession of the plot in question and thereafter he can claim to retain the same but as presently he has no title documents with regard to the same, therefore his revision application is not maintainable and the same is hereby rejected. However, the applicant will be at liberty to file any suit for establishing his right with regard to the suit property, if so advised. The Revision Application is disposed of along with all the pending applications. There will be no order as to costs.