' MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J.--- Instant revision petition is directed against the judgments/decrees dated 26th December, 2011 and 31st May, 2012 respectively passed by the Civil Judge-I, Quetta and District Judge (Ad hoc), Quetta, whereby the suit as well as appeal filed by the petitioner were dismissed.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of instant revision petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit for Injunction against respondents/defendants in the Court of Civil Judge-I, Quetta. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is in possession of the property situated at Mohal Karkhasa, Mouza Kirani, Tappa Shadinzai, Tehsil and District Quetta with its Khasra No,799/754/800/759/756- 167/1051, measuring 8 acres and 21 poles, bearing Khewat and Khatooni No,17/28, opposite BMC Complex, Brewery Road, Quetta. It was further averred in the plaint that the said property was purchased in the name of his mother by the plaintiff as "Benami transaction". According to the plaintiff adjacent to the property referred to hereinabove a property bearing Khasra No,4743/787- 760-786/167, measuring 67677 sq.Ft, situated at Mohal Kharkhasa, Mouza Kirani Tappa Shadinzai, Tehsil and District Quetta was lying vacant in the year 1980, therefore, he occupied the adjacent property by constructing walls on three sides. It is further case of the plaintiff that thereafter the property in question was sold by its original owner to one Haji Ghulam Haider, who later on transferred the same in the name of stepmother and stepsister of the plaintiff. Recently the plaintiff came to know that the defendant No,4, intends to take possession of the property by demarcating the area for the purpose of bifurcation. The defendant No,4 was requested to refrain from doing an illegal act but he did not accede to such request and was bent upon to take possession forcibly through defendant No,3, hence the suit.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents/defendants Nos.1 and 2, by way of filing written statement, whereby, besides raising certain preliminary legal objections, the claim of the plaintiff/petitioner was repudiated on merits as well.
4. The trial Court, out of the pleadings of the parties framed following issues:
1. Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable in view of legal objection "A to C" raised by defendant No, 1 and 2 in their written statement?
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed for?
11. Relief?
5. Thereafter, the parties were directed to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims.
Whereupon, the plaintiff/petitioner examined three P.Ws. And attorney of plaintiff/petitioner also entered the witness box. In rebuttal, the respondents/defendants produced one D.W. And -their attorney also got recorded his statement. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments and evaluating the evidence, vide judgment/decree dated 26th December, 2011, dismissed the suit. The petitioner feeling aggrieved of the judgment/decree passed by the trial Court preferred an appeal before the District Judge (Adhoc), Quetta, which too, was dismissed, hence the instant revision petition.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who contended that both the Courts below illegally, unlawfully and without any justification dismissed the suit despite of the fact that there was ample evidence available on record, on the basis whereof a valid decree could have been passed in favour of the petitioner. But both the Courts below failed to take into consideration this aspect of the case. Learned counsel stressed that the petitioner proved their case by producing trustworthy, confidence-inspiring and tangible evidence, but both the Courts below without any justification did not take into consideration the material available on record and without any rhyme or reason dismissed the suit as well as appeal filed by the petitioner. Learned counsel emphasized that the Courts below wrongly held that the suit filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and that the petitioner have no cause of action. Learned counsel further argued that while passing the judgments/ decrees impugned both the courts below failed to take into consideration that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property and at the time of occupying the property none including the previous owner raised any objection.
' On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously opposed the petition and argued there are concurrent findings of fact and law arrived at by two Courts below, which cannot be normally disturbed by this Court, unless it is proved that the same arc result of misreading and non-reading of evidence or the same is shocking, ridiculous and perverse. No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the judgments/ decrees impugned. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence. On the contrary, the plaintiff/petitioner failed to prove his claim by producing trustworthy and confidence inspiring evidence, thus; the only legal course open to the Courts below was to dismiss the suit as well as appeal.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the parties' learned counsel and have gone through the record of the case but I have not been able to persuade myself to subscribe to the view point expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for couple of reasons. Firstly; because the petitioner admittedly is neither the owner nor ever has he occupied the premises in question with permission of the owner. The petitioner is well aware that he does not reside in no man's land nor is he above the law, rather being citizen of Pakistan is bound by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and subject to all prevalent laws governing the country. The petitioner claims to have occupied the land in the year 1980 (even if believed), the plaintiff is having no legal, ethical and moral justification rather as per his own admission he has been committing a continuous offence of trespassing for which he was liable to have been prosecuted under criminal law. Secondly; the petitioner filed suit for injunction but during the pendency of the proceedings it surfaced that he is no more in possession of the property meaning thereby an end has come to the illegal possession of the petitioner. Under such circumstances there was no occasion for subordinate courts including this court to authorize the petitioner to reoccupy the land or to continue an illegal possession. Thirdly; the transaction of the disputed property through legal and valid documents have been carried out at the first instance in the name of Ghulam Haider.
Thereafter, mutated in the name of Mst. Zainab and Kalsoom Bibi in the year, 1992 and thereafter in the year 2002 in the name of respondents. All the documentation so carried out were/are in accordance with law and the petitioner being aware of said legal documentation and conferment of title to respective owners but he kept quite and felt satisfied. Moreover; the petitioner came to know about such entries at the relevant time but since he was conscious of the fact that he has got no concern whatsoever with the ownership of the property, therefore, he did not/and of course could not raise any objection. Even now the petitioner admits and accepts the ownership of the respondents. Despite accepting and admitting the ownership of the respondents, the filing of the suit is beyond rational, logic and comprehension. The present suit was filed by the petitioner on account of the fact that an application dated 6th May, 2010 was moved to Tehsildar who is Revenue Officer, for demarcation of the property between the respective owners. The perusal of application reflects that it is an application within the domain of section 117 of Land Revenue Act, within the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue hierarchy. It is not understandable that how such a suit could be found maintainable and competent before the civil court whereby the respondent No,4, who being a Revenue Officer has been requested to perform his legal obligation, how could be stopped from performing his legal obligation and the suit was/is absolutely hit by the provisions of section 172 of the Land Revenue Act. Fourthly; by abolition' of Article 144 and section 28 of the Limitation Act, gone the days when an encroacher or trespasser could have laid a claim on the basis of so called and illegal possession. I am confident to hold that the suit filed by the petitioner was not competent. Similarly the dismissal of appeal by the appellate court is of course within the four corners of law. Besides, the prayer clauses in the plaint are not only illegal, and unwarranted but contradictory and derogatory to each other. For instance in prayer clause "a" the plaintiff/petitioner seeks declaration that the respondents Nos.1 and 2, have got no right to get possession except through due course of law but the petitioner forgot that the Revenue Record confirms the fact that the respondents were in possession and are joint owners, therefore, they have rightly requested the competent Revenue Officer for demarcation. Similarly, prayer clause "b" is contrary to law and logic how the owner could permanently be restrained from entering the premises ownership whereof vests in him/them. To my perception , by filing the suit, appeal and present petition in fact the petitioner has caused mental tension, torture and agony besides subjecting the respondents to incur cost by contesting the proceedings and defending their rights.
The perusal of record reflects that the trial as well as appellate Courts have properly dealt with the issues and the evidence available on record have rightly been appreciated. A meaningful analysis of the plaint reflects that the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs does not seem to be competent at all. Besides, there is no misreading and non-reading of evidence nor for that matter any defect in the judgments/decrees could be pointed out. Since concurrent findings of fact have been rendered by two Courts below after proper appraisal of material available on record which are not open to any legal exception. This Court does not interfere where there is no impropriety, perversity, irregularity or infirmity in the judgments impugned, thus, finding no force in the petition, the same is dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs,20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only).