' AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.---Through these proceedings the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan passed in Civil Revision whereby it has dismissed the Civil Revision filed by the petitioner.
2. The material facts for the purpose of deciding these proceedings are that the respondent No, 1 filed a suit of declaration challenging the validity of General Power of Attorney dated 8-10-1990 against Ghulam Murtaza Shah respondent No,2 and the petitioner. It was pleaded by the respondent No,1 that he and his sisters namely Surreya Bibi, Ruqueyya Bibi and Kalsoom Bibi did not execute the General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No,2 Ghulam Murtaza Shah as their attorney to dispose of their immovable properties. It was further pleaded in the suit that the respondent No,2 fraudulently sold the property of the respondent Np.1 to the petitioner by executing sale deed on 21-6-2003 on the basis of power of attorney dated 8-10-1990. The respondent No,1 who is real brother of the respondent No, 2 did not impleaded his sisters as defendants in the suit.
He, further pleaded that even otherwise, the power of attorney on the .Basis of which the petitioner acquired title stood revoked on 2-1-1999 on the death of his sister Ruqueyya Bibi. The suit was contested by the petitioner. The respondent No,1 neither filed written statement nor appeared in the witness box and was ordered to be proceeded ex parte. After the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court on. 23-12-2009, decreed the suit against which the petitioner preferred appeal which was dismissed on 20-7-2011. The petitioner thereafter preferred the revision petition which, too, was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
2(sic). It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit filed by the respondent No,1 against his brother respondent No,2 was collusive and the decree passed therein was obtained by fraud depriving the petitioner from the subject property which he acquired as bona fide purchaser, without notice pursuant to the sale deed dated 21-6-2003. He next contended that the respondents Nos,1 and 2 were in league throughout. He submitted that the same power of attorney was challenged by the respondent No, 1 in other proceedings by filing another suit, which was subsequently compromised. He submitted that the High Court as well as the Courts below have wrongly decreed the suit of the respondent No, 1 . According to him, the respondent No,1 did not produce the required evidence to seek a decree against the petitioner and his brother respondent No,,
2. He further contended that the Courts below fell in error in holding that on the death of Mst. Ruqueyya Bibi on 2-1-1999 the power of attorney executed by the respondent No,1 and his sisters stood revoked. He contended that he purchased the property of the respondent No,1 bonafidely and death of one of the executants of power of attorney, whose property or interest has not been purchased by him, shall not invalidate the sale transaction.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was never put in possession' of the property which - he claims to have purchased from the respondent No, 1 by virtue of sale deed pursuant to the power of attorney. We have inquired from the petitioner's counsel as to whether the petitioner has filed any suit for possession after the purchase of the property, as admittedly its possession was not delivered to him by the respondent No,2. He concedes that no suit for possession was filed by the petitioner till date. He could not offer any plausible explanation for not filing of the suit against the respondents. The petitioner's cause was independent of the dispute between the respondents Nos,1 and- 2 and irrespective of the findings in the suit, he was required to file separate suit for possession against the respondents.
The petitioner was party to the suit filed by respondent No, 1 against respondent No: 2 but he beingdefendant could not seek a decree against respondents on the basis of his written statement and the evidence led in support thereof.
4. The petitioner's counsel has also failed to offer any plausible explanation as to why the possession of the property was not delivered to him by the respondent No, 2 on receipt of the entire sale consideration, The petitioner also, at trial, could not prove the payment of sale Consideration of the property in dispute to establish his bona fide.
5. In the given circumstances irrespective of the litigation between - the respondents Nos, 1 and 2, the petitioner ought to have filed a separate suit for possession of the suit property to seek redressal of his grievance against the respondents. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in collateral proceedings initiated by the respondent No,1 challenging the said General Power of Attorney resulted in compromise could hardly be made a ground to presume that General Power of Attorney was validly executed by the respondent No,
1. The findings of the learned High Court and courts below are based on correct appreciation of the material brought on record and does not warrant interference by this Court.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined.