' ABDUL LATIF KHAN, J.---. Through the instant revision petition; the petitioners have assailed the judgment and decree dated 21-11-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, D.I.Khan vide which the appeal of the respondent/plaintiff was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2010 of learned Civil Judge-V, D.I.Khan was set aside and suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed in terms mentioned in the judgment.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that the respondent/ plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioners/ defendants for declaration to the effect that he is owner of the property detailed in the heading of the plaint on the basis of Mutations Nos.903 and 904 attested on 24-10- 1996 and that gift Mutation No,852 dated 8-9-1995 is fraudulent and ineffective upon his nights. He also prayed for perpetual, mandatory and prohibitory injunction and in the alternative, prayed for possession of the suit-land or the property of mauza Bhukki and mauza Kot Musa. In prayer 'Bay', the respondent/plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs,20,000.
3. The respondents / defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement. The learned trial Court framed issues arising out of the divergent pleadings of the parties. The parties produced their respective evidence as they wished to adduce. After hearing the arguments, the learned Civil Judge-V, D.I. Khan dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 31-7-2010.
4. Aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 31-7-2010, the respondent/ plaintiff filed an appeal which was accepted by learned Additional District Judge-IV, D.I. Khan on 21-11-2011, the impugned judgment and decree dated 31-7-2010 was set aside and suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed as mentioned above, hence the instant revision petition.
5. S. Mastan Ali Zaidi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the learned appellate Court has travelled beyond jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgment and decree which is contrary to the pleadings and based on misreading of record available on file.
He contended that the respondent/plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and in no case can be benefited from the shortcomings of other side. He further contended that the appellate Court has wrongly set aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court which was well reasoned and passed in accordance with law. He added that the allegations of fraud in attestation of Mutation No,852 have not been proved by the respondent/ plaintiff which was his bounden duty and as such he was not entitled to any relief. He contended that the appellate Court has granted the relief beyond pleadings which was not permissible under the law and as such prayed for the reversal of findings arrived at by the appellate Court.
6. As against that, Muhammad Wahid Anjum, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the appellate Court has rightly observed regarding transfer of ownership and possession of land other than suit-land of similar value and location as the petitioners had committed fraud with the respondent/plaintiff during the course of attestation of Mutations Nos.903 and 904. He contended that the appellate. Court has observed about the conduct of the petitioners as to the factum of commission of fraud on their part and has rightly observed so and in such state of affairs, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
7. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments advanced at the bar by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their valuable assistance.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners had transferred the property in the name of respondent/plaintiff by dint of Mutations Nos.903 and 904, both attested on 24-10-1996 vide which landed property measuring 25 kanals 7 marlas was transferred in lieu of sale consideration and as such the respondent/plaintiff became owner of the property by stepping into the shoes of the petitioners. Strange enough that prior to that, a gift Mutation No,852 dated 8-9-1995 was entered and attested on behalf of petitioner No,1, Kaloo Khan in favour of the donees i.e, his son and others.
On acquiring knowledge of the same, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit against the petitioners seeking annulment of Mutation No,852 dated 8-9-1995. In written statement, the petitioners took the plea that gift Mutation No,852 was, rightly attested, however, contended that subsequent Mutations Nos.903 and 904 attested in favour of the respondent/plaintiff are wrong and ineffective upon their rights. This conduct of the petitioners shows that they have deliberately defrauded the respondent/ plaintiff by selling that piece of land which they had already gifted out to his son and were left with no right of ownership or authority to transfer the same in favour of the respondent/defendant. The attestation of Mutations Nos.903 and 904 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff was never challenged by the petitioners.
' The trial Court has wrongly dismissed the suit of the respondent/ plaintiff and appeal against which was accepted with modification and by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court. The appellate Court held that though the respondent/plaintiff had a cause of action and was not entitled to the decree in respect of ownership of the suit-land, yet he was entitled to get similar land or its, value from the petitioners. Three options were given by the appellate Court vide which the respondent/plaintiff was held entitled for other land owned by the petitioners of similar measurement, location, nature and value to that of the suit property purchased by dint of Mutations Nos.903 and 904 attested on 24-10-1996 or in alternative, the value of the land, to be determined by the executing Court and in case of disagreement by the parties, the value shall be of the year when payment is being made. However, the claim of ownership of the respondent/plaintiff against the respondents/defendants as to suit-land was not allowed and to this extent judgment and decree of the learned trial Court was upheld.
9. The petitioners raised technical objections with regard to the non-existence of prayer in respect of the property decreed in favour of the respondents and vehemently assailed the judgment on the ground that the appellate Court has travelled beyond jurisdiction to grant a relief which was not specifically asked for in the pleadings. To meet this question, Order VII, Rule 7, C.P.C. Is reproduced below for ready reference:- "Relief to be specifically stated----Every plaint shall state specifically the relief which the plaintiff claims either simply or in the alternative, and it shall not be necessary to ask for general or other relief which may always be given as the Court may think just to the same extent as if it had been asked for. And the same rule shall apply to any relief claimed by the defendant in his written statement."
The bare reading of the referred provision divulges upon the issue that the plaintiff was under obligation to seek all the reliefs about which he claims to be entitled in respect of the same. It is not the prerogative of the plaintiff to omit or relinquish any relief available to him at the time of filing lis.
However, the Court can grant leave to this extent and is empowered to grant such relief, as substantial justice requires. It is pertinent to note that for granting relief, the entire plaint is to be looked into with special reference to the substance subject to certain limitations and exceptions. In the light of changed circumstances, the Court can grant such relief by exercising inherent powers and to do complete justice between the parties as the law does not allow technicalities to come in the way of dispensation of substantial justice.
11. The arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners seem to be without force.
The Court has ample power to grant the relief not specifically `asked for either simply or in alternative. The principle of departure from pleadings has been misconceived or that is not related to the relief to be granted by the Court to do justice between the parties, rather the same is confined to the parties who are bound by their pleadings and cannot depart from their pleadings without leave of the Court.
12. In the instant case, the petitioner No,1/vendor had the knowledge that he is left with no authority to transfer the property, even then he defrauded the respondent/plaintiff by getting Mutations Nos.903 and 904 attested in favour of the respondent/plaintiff on receipt of sale consideration, concealing the fact that he had transferred the property by way of gift through Mutation No,852 in favour of his son and another which shows malice on his part and he cannot be allowed to take benefit of his own fraud by depriving the respondent/plaintiff of the property legally acquired by him. In such scenario, the appellate Court has rightly ordered the transfer of other proper owned by the petitioners similarly placed, of same value and nature to satisfy the claim of the respondent/plaintiff which is strictly in accordance with the norms of justice, law besides. The appellate Court has further taken lenient view in favour of the petitioners by giving options facilitating them to redress the grievance of the respondent/plaintiff in any manner they wished.
So, the impugned judgment being in line with law and substantial justice warrants no interference through the instant revision petition.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no force in the instant revision petition which is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.