AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J. --- By this single judgment I intend to dispose of the above-captioned civil revision, and writ petition. Through the civil revision, the petitioner has ' challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, dated 2.5.2001, whereby the appeal filed by the respondents-plaintiffs was accepted and judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Rahim Yar Khan, dated 9.10.2000 dismissing the suit, was set aside.
2. Briefly, the facts as leading to the civil revision are that the plaintiffs Arib s/o Shah Muhammad and Nawaz s/o Lakha filed a suit for declaration on 1.12.1985 alleging therein that they are owner in possession of suit property mentioned in the suit and alleged general power-of-attorney registered on 1.5.1965 bearing No. 83 and the alleged sale-deeds Nos. 1226 registered on 1.8.1985 and 1201 registered on 28.7.1985, are illegal and have no effect upon the rights of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also prayed for the declaration of the title. The suit was contested by the defendants by filing written statement. The Trial Court after framing of issues, invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence in order to prove their version. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2000 dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs filed an appeal which was accepted on 2.5.2001 by the first Appellate Court and judgment and decree of the Trial Court was set aside. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the onus to prove of issues Nos. 1 and 4 was upon the plaintiffs. They failed to prove these two issues, therefore, the decree granted by the Trial Court while dismissing the suit was in accordance with law, whereas the first Appellate Court has wrongly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and decreed the suit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs never appointed any one to be their general attorney; that the first Appellate Court rightly declared the said impugned general power-of-attorney as forged one and rightly decreed the suit in their favour. Further states that when they came to know about the forgery. They filed the suit within a period of two weeks of the knowledge of transfer of their property in favour of defendants. Learned counsel has referred paragraph No. 1 of the written statement and states that even the petitioners- defendants have admitted the ownership of the suit property of the plaintiffs; that the petitioner has not appended with this revision the complete copies of the documentary evidence of the parties as well as the report of Local Commission which was in favour of respondents-plaintiffs. It has been further contended that the respondents-plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property till today and that no one appeared from the defendants' side as their own witness, as no witness of the alleged general power-of-attorney was produced in the Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record.
6. The respondents-plaintiffs' possession is proved by the documentary evidence. When a person is in possession of the suit property, the entry in the revenue record or any other transferred document which the plaintiff alleges to be the result of fraud, in that eventuality the defence of limitation taken by the defendant is not automatically a bar against the plaintiff. The matter of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law until it is proved through the evidence by the defendant that the transaction was in the knowledge of the plaintiff, that bar of limitation cannot be used against the plaintiff when he is in possession of the suit property as cause of action to the plaintiff arose when any entry in the revenue record or any other document challenging the title of the plaintiff comes to his knowledge. If any entry is not a threat to a right of a person, that person is not bound to challenge that entry or document when he is in possession of the property in question. In case in hand, the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property, therefore, their suit cannot be said to be time-barred when the defendant has not proved this mixed question of fact and law. Furthermore, the complete evidence of the parties has not been appended with this civil revision, the report of Local Commission which is undeniable in favour of plaintiffs has also not been appended to this petition.
7. Under Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioner is bound to produce the complete pleadings, evidence of the parties, orders of the Court, judgment and decree. The petitioner totally failed to annex with this civil revision all these documents. It is a fatal defect in the way of petitioner. Further, no one from the petitioner-defendant side appeared as his own witness, it is another defect in the way of petitioner-defendant. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to show any defect in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court and failed to make out a case of interference by this Court u/S. 115 of the CPC.
8. In the light of what has been discussed above, I see no force in the civil revision, which is dismissed with costs. By way of Constitutional petition, the petitioner wants to get the impugned land mutated in his favour. The civil revision has since been dismissed, therefore, no case has been made out by the petitioner through the Constitutional petition. Consequently, the writ petition is also dismissed with no order as to costs.
Civil revision .