1. The dispute in this case relates to land measuring 209/270 share out of land measuring 11 kanals and 3 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 96 and 147, situate in village Billitang, District Kohat. The suit land was sold to the petitioner herein ostensibly for Rs. 10,000 through Mutation No. 45 attested on 12-8-1974. The respondent pre-empted this sole transaction. For the purpose of this revision application it is sufficient to state that before the two Courts below the petitioner did not challenge the superior right of pre-emption of respondent and only the question of limitation was argued before them. The learned Civil Judge, who tried the suit, dismissed the same as barred by limitation, vide his judgment dated 29-6-1978. But on appeal before the learned District Judge, the respondent succeeded and his suit was held within tune with the result that the learned District Judge accepted the appeal and granted a decree to the plaintiff/respondent on payment of Rs.
2. 10,000 vide his judgment dated 11-3-1979. Hence this revision application by the defendant- petitioner.
3. I have perused the. Judgments of the two Courts below and have gone through the evidence on record. The plea of the petitioner was that he had taken possession of the suit land before the attestation of Mutation No. 45 on 12-8-1974 in his favour. The learned Civil Judge upheld this plea.
4. He referred to the entries in the revenue record as well as to the statement of Inayat A.I (C. W. 1). He observed that per column No. 14 of the mutation, on 14-6-1974 the Patwari reported the sale of the suit land and on 17-6-1974 the sale was complete in all respects and thereafter Mutation No. 45 was attested on 12-8-1974 in confirmation of the previous order dated 17-6-1974. From this he came to the conclusion that possession was secured by the petitioner on 17-6-1974 when the sale was complete and not on 12-8-1974 when the mutation was attested. In support of this con-- clusion, he relied on the statement of C. W. Inayat A.I who stated in exami--nation-in-chief that he was the tenant of the suit land and in the month of Besak (April/May), he cut the Wheat crop from the suit land and thereafter went outside which, according to the learned Civil Judge, means that the suit land was then clear for possession in April/May 1974 and as thereafter on 17-6-1974 the sale was complete, the petitioner can be said to have secured possession of the suit land from that date (17-6-1974).
5. The learned District Judge was not impressed by this line of reasoning of the learned Civil Judge and held the suit of the respondent within time. By perusal of the evidence on record, I agree with him. True, apart from him--self the petitioner produced two more defence witnesses, namely, Attar Khan and Ayyub Khan, to show that the petitioner took possession of the suit land earlier than the attestation of Muation and hence the suit against him was barred try limitation. But their evidence requires corroboration by other reliable evidence which seems to be lacking. I do not find any such corroboration. On the other hand, the defence witnesses are con--tradicted by Inayat A.I (C. W. 1) with whose evidence I will presently deal. But before proceeding to deal with his evidence it is relevant to observe that he was the tenant of the suit land and he appeared as Court witness, his evidence will carry credence. In other words, as he is a Court witness the evidence of the parties will have to be tested in the light of his evidence.
6. Now in cross-examination C. W. Inayat A.I admitted that he parted with possession of the suit land as tenant after he came to know that the suit land was purchased by the petitioner through sale mutation. It may be pointed out that his leaving up the suit land was contingent upon his knowledge of the sale mutation effected in favour of the petitioner. I consider it a crucial admission on his part against the petitioner. It may be observed that normally a witness is required to appear as' Court witness if it appears to the Court that the evidence produced on either side is balanced and stands on equal footing and it will be difficult to draw a safe conclusion therefrom in favour of one party or the other unless Court witness is examined. In that event, the evidence of Court witness can be considered a determining factor for just decision of the case.
7. As stated earlier C. W. Inayat A.I was the tenant of the suit land. This position is not denied on either side. Correct that in examination-in-chief he stated that he cut the Wheat crop in the month of Besak and then went outside and thereafter he came to know that the petitioner wants to take possession of the suit land. But this part of the evidence is not clear, as he has not stated in the examination-in-chief that after he cut the Wheat crop, the petitioner took possession of the suit land in the month of Besak or thereafter in any particular month. Therefore, this part of his statement in the examination-in-chief does not throw any light on the possession of the suit land by the petitioner. As against it, his statement in cross-exami--nation is specific and unequivocal that he left possession of the suit land after he came to know that the sale mutation was attested in favour of the petitioner. This unequivocal. Admission, in all probability clinches the matter against the petitioner to perjure him that he took possession of the suit land before the attestation of mutation in his favour. Th6re is one more feature to support the fact that the petitioner came in possession of the suit land after the attestation of mutation in his favour. As observed by the learned District Judge in paragraph 5 of his impugned judgment that "the mutation was finally attested by the revenue officer on 1?.-8-1974 and the entry of Tradodi dated 2-10-1974 would show that the possession of defendant was after the attestation of mutation and not before which fact is clearly borne out from the statement of Ghulam Hussain P.
8. W. 2 who has clearly admitted in supplement re-examination statement that the possession of the suit defendant in Kharif 1974 is on the basis of the mutation."
9. From the above discussion, it is thus clear that the petitioner came into possession of the suit land after Mutation No. 45 was attested in his favour on 12-8-1974. Therefore, limitation in the present case will be reckoned from 12-8-1974. The respondent filed the suit on 1-9-1975. Ordinarily, he should have filed it on 12-8-1975. But as the Court was closed on account of summer vacation from 12-8-1975 to 31-8-1975, the suit filed by him on 1-9-1975 was, therefore, within time.
10. The result is that this revision application fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.