ABDUL WAHEED KHAN, J. --- Chahat Khan respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that impugned mutation of exchange No. 1310, dated 16.06.1997 and daily diary report dated 06.06.1997, in that regard, were void and inoperative qua his rights. It was further prayed that an injunction be issued restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering into his ownership and possession. According to the averments of the plaint, the respondent was owner of land in Mouza Saddah and that his son namely Abdul Hameed (defendant No. 2) who is a clever man obtained General power-of-attorney on 07.11.1994 just for the administration of the land which was under cultivation possession of Sher Muhammad, the other son of the respondent. It was alleged that Abdul Hameed misused the power-of-attorney and hence the plaintiff respondent cancelled the same vide Abtaal-nama dated 19.08.1997. It was further stated in the plaint that thereafter on 01.09.1997 the afore-mentioned Abdul Hameed exchanged the suit land on behalf of the plaintiff against his land measuring 2-kanals in Mauza Bhoe Asil to deprive the plaintiff and his son from the property and that there was no exchange of title and possession of the suit property. The suit was contested by filing the written statement ,and thereafter as many as seven issues were settled. The civil suit was fixed for plaintiff's evidence when the defendant appeared in the Court on 26.07.2000 and defendant No. 1 made a statement that his land which was to be given to the plaintiff in exchange vide mutation No. 2768 of Mauza Bhoe Asil was not given to him because mutation had not been sanctioned. Defendant No. 1 further stated that he wanted to finish the dispute and therefore he was ready to return the plaintiff's land and he would get the mutation sanctioned back for restoration of the title of the plaintiff. After recording of the statement defendant No, 2 also did not raise any objection and the Civil Court dismissed the suit as according to the suit had become infructuous.
2. The respondent-plaintiff assailed the said judgment through an appeal and the said appeal was accepted through the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2002 and the suit was decreed as prayed for in the plaint, hence this revision petition.
3. While reiterating the contents of the revision petition the counsel for the petitioner/defendant No. 1 contends that respondent/defendant No. 2 as general attorney of defendant No. 1 entered into an agreement of exchange of the property through a validly sanctioned mutation and that although he has made a statement before the Civil Court conceding the contents of the plaint but the Appellate Court should have decided the case on merit notwithstanding recording of the conceding statement.
4. Arguments heard and ,record perused. The admitted fact is that after filing of the contesting written statement, issues were settled. Subsequently the petitioner/defendant No. 1, who is beneficiary of the alleged exchange, made a statement conceding the assertions of the plaint for the return of the property to the respondents/plaintiffs. In this view of the matter, when the facts have been admitted by the petitioner, there was no need to record any further evidence and decide the controversy on merits. The law is very much clear on the point that facts which are admitted by other side needs not to be proved. The Appellate. Court has rightly given observations that dismissal of the suit was misconceived and instead the suit should have been decreed because the relief sought by the plaintiff was not resisted. It has also come on record that other mutation was not sanctioned- despite expiry of a considerable period. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has failed to make out any case calling interference by this Court in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. Resultantly, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Civil revision .