' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---This civil revision has been filed against the judgment . And decree dated 19-1-2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, whereby the suit filed by the petitioner under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 29-9-2008 petitioner No,1 filed, a suit for restoration of possession under section 9 of the Special Relief Act, 1877, wherein it is stated that suit property which is consisting upon 17 shops, two rooms and one house. Measuring 3 kanals and 5 marlas fully described in para No,1 of the plaint is owned and was in possession of the plaintiffs. Petitioner No,2 was initially made party as defendant No,2 but vide order dated 5-3-2009, he was transposed as plaintiff No,2. It was stated that on 17-9-2008 at about Maghribvela defendant with the assistance of other people who were armed with deadly weapons forcibly took the possession of the suit property and they are in illegal possession of the same. The defendant appeared and filed written statement. He stated that he is in possession as share holder of the suit property since 1994-1995 and stated that suit is not proceedable and is time-barred. The issues were framed. Both the parties produced their respective evidence. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 19-1-2012 dismissed the suit, hence this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the learned trial Court misread the evidence produced by the plaintiffs-petitioners and states that even the clear cut suggestions made by the learned counsel for the defendant to P.W.1 have been ignored, wherein it was suggested that the suit-land was originally in the ownership of the defendant, who sold the same. Learned counsel further states that the evidence produced by the plaintiffs-petitioners has been misinterpreted and the voluminous documentary evidence has been ignored by the learned trial Court and without any lawful justification has given weight to the statements of DW.1 and DW.2. Learned counsel states that even Exh.P-2 the sale-deed has been produced through which the defendant sold the suit property in favour of National Industrial Finance Corporation and it was clearly stated in the sale-deed that this property has been specifically sold and possession has been delivered to the said Finance Corporation and learned counsel states that it is not denied that this property was auctioned and sale-deed was executed in favour of auction-purchaser which was duly registered, copy of which has been produced as Exh.P-1 and further that the auction purchaser sold the property to Kausar Hayat and from Kausar Hayat this property was purchased by the petitioners for an amount of Rs,1,50,00,000. Learned counsel states that the electricity bills of the meter installed on the suit property have been produced and copies of the judgment and memo of costs passed in application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Moved by the petitioners which was allowed, have been produced as Exh.P-7 and Exh.P-7/1. Further the Revenue Record is also in favour of petitioners and even the Khasragirdawari is also in support of the version of the petitioners. Further that the receipt of payment of rent has been produced as Exh.P-12.Learned counsel further states that the documentary evidence produced by the defendant is absolutely not helpful to The respondent- defendant. He on technicalities tried to knock out the petitioners and the learned trial Court fell in error while dismissing the suit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent states that the story is not correct and best evidence has not been produced, therefore, states that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is in accordance with law and cannot be, interfered by this Court' while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance.
6. I have noticed that the case built by the defendant is absolutely on technical basis but the learned trial Court has ignored the voluminous evidence produced by the plaintiffs-petitioners.
There is clear-cut evidence available on the file to decide issue No,1 in favour of the plaintiffs. It is not denied by the defendant that he was owner Of the suit property but he sold the same through Exh.P-2 in favour of National. Industrial Finance Corporation through registered sale-deed dated 26-2-1989 ( Ex. P-2)and it is also not denied that the same property was auctioned in favour of Wali Rehman etc. and the sale-deed was executed in their favour by the National Industrial Finance Corporation. It is alsb not denied that the suit property was sold in favour of the Kausar Hayat and Kausar Hayat further sold out in favour of the plaintiffs-petitioners. Further the ex parte decree in his favour on the basis of which the defendant wants to defend this suit, is no more in the field and application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioners was accepted by the learned District Judge and ex parte decree has been set aside and the suit has been restored and further against the acceptance of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The Revision Petition No,1798 of 2011 filed by the defendant-respondent has been dismissed by this Court today.
7. The defence advanced in the written statement by the defendant is very important. In reply to para. No,1, he states that he is in possession since 1994-1995 and in reply to paragraph No,2 he states that the plaintiff and defendant No,2 never remained in peaceful and lawful possession, in this way their possession has not been denied specifically, this reply is evasive denial, needless to state that evasive denial amounts to admission when admittedly through sale-deed Exh.P-2 defendant sold out the suit plot and parted with the possession, after purchase National Industrial Finance Corporation auctioned the suit property, how the defendant, under which capacity again got possession of the constructed suit plot, this fact is missing. Further I have noticed that the statement of P. W.1 made with regard to taking illegal possession by the defendant of the suit property on 17-9-2008 has not been specifically cross-examined on this point by the learned counsel for the defendant, therefore, this portion of statement of P.W.1 will be presumed to be admitted by the defendant under the law. The statement of DW.1 Muhammad Zaman that after selling the property he has not transferred the possession of the suit property is also in contradiction with his written statement as he is claiming possession since 1994-1995,whereas he sold the suit property through registered sale-deed in the year 1989. The oral evidence has no value against the documentary evidence which sale-deed is also executed by the defendant himself and further this contradiction that he has not parted with the possession and then he claimed possession in the written statement in the year 1994-1995 clearly shows that he is telling lie and further this contradiction goes against him.
8. I have noticed that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on presumption as it is clearly stated by the plaintiffs that defendant party is very influential and some Federal Minister is also involved in the matter and supporting the respondent and further that the 'police was helpless in this matter because of the influence of the defendant. When the police has not registered the case on the complaint of the petitioners, they rushed to the civil court for redressal of their grievance and if civil court is reluctant to decide the case on merits, likewise the police refused to register the case under the law, it amounts to refusal of justice to the aggrieved party. In this view of the matter, I am clear in my mind that the plaintiffs-petitioners proved their case and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are result of misreading and non-reading as well as ignoring the documentary evidence produced by the petitioners-plaintiffs.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, this civil revision is allowed. Consequently, I set aside the judgment ad decree passed by the trial Court and suit of the plaintiffs-petitioners stands decree in their favour.