ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- This Civil revision is directed against the concurrent findings of fact of two Courts below whereby suit tiled by the petitioner for declaration arid permanent injunction was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge on 28.02.2011, whereafter an appeal was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock vide Judgment and decree dated 20.12.2011.
2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this civil revision are that a suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction was filed on the basis that the petitioner being an illiterate and poor person purchased the land measuring 20 kanals and 5 marlas in Khewat/Khata Nos. 108/631 bearing Khasra No. 567/835 situated within the area of Mouza Rahbola, Tehsil Pindigheb for consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. However, the mutation was not executed in favour of the petitioner but another Mutation No. 1150, dated 24.07.1973 was executed which was a product of fraud and inoperative qua the petitioner/plaintiff's right. The said suit was resisted by the respondents and following issues out of the pleadings of the parties were framed:---
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree for declaration of suit land as prayed for on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to bring this suit? OPD
(3) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed due to non-payment of Court-fee? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is false and frivolous and defendant is entitled to recover special costs under Section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD
(6) Relief.
3. Both the parties led their respective evidence and after hearing the parties learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner whereafter the appeal also met the same fate. Hence this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have committed a material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned judgments; that the petitioner moved an application before the Trial Court and offered for special oath which was denied by the respondent, therefore, an adverse inference should have been drawn against him; that the judgments are based on surmises and conjectures and passed on technicalities; that the documentary evidence was totally ignored when the word of the mortgaged property mentioned at the Fard secured the valuable rights of the petitioner hence prays for setting aside of the two judgments.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent submits that suit was hopelessly barred by time as it was filed on 5.6.2009 i.e. After 37 years of the mutation and that the learned two Courts below have not committed any illegality and prays for dismissal of the civil revision.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Ex.P-1 is the copy of mutation which is dated 24.07.1973. The petitioner could not establish on the basis of record that the sale was secret one and that same was mortgage rather than sale. The details of fraud was to be given and proved but even no date of knowledge of the alleged fraudulent mutation was brought on record. No evidence was given of other properties which the petitioner allegedly mortgaged to the respondent. On the contrary the presumption of truth is attached to the official documents under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. No adverse inference can be drawn at this stage of refusal on the offer of the special oath by the respondent. The up- rebutted documentary evidence excludes the oral evidence of the petitioner. I see no illegality or misreading of evidence calling for interference by this Court in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below. In this view of the matter this civil revision is dismissed. Civil revision .