Through this civil revision, the petitioners have challenged the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar who dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and upheld the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2000 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bahawalpur whereby the suit of Respondent No, 1 for declaration with permanent injunction was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No, 1/plaintiff filed a suit for possession that he is owner in possession of residential plot measuring 10-Marlas situated at Khadimabad Colony, Bahawalnagar on the basis of Patta Malkiat No, 74/B dated 01.03.1992 as well as subsequent Mutation No, 5856 dated 29.03.1992, therefore, the petitioners have got no concern whatsoever towards the said plot. It is asserted that the petitioners/defendants were bent upon to cause interference into the possession of the Respondent No, 1/plaintiff qua the said property without lawful justification. It is also averred that the petitioners managed to get issued an order dated 26.12.1995 from Respondents No, 2 and 3 in respect of cancellation of said transfer of property in question in favour of Respondent No, 1, therefore, the said order dated 26,12.1995 was illegal, void, ex parte and mala-fide qua the rights of the Respondent No,
1. The request of Respondent No, 1/plaintiff to the petitioners for not asserting any right as well as not to dispossess Respondent No, 1 from the disputed property illegally and forcibly did not bear any fruit obliging him to file the said suit for declaration.
3. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants vehemently by filing written statement.
Keeping in view the divergent pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- "1. Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the impugned plot, defendants have nothing to do with it, order dated 26.12.1995 is collusive, without notice, ex parte, against the law and facts, void, ineffective qua the rights of plaintiff, liable to cancellation and defendants be restrained permanently to dispossess plaintiff from here and claim ownership of the impugned plot? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action, locus-standi and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC?OPD.
3. Whether the suit is not properly stamped? OPD.
4. Whether the suit is vexatious and Defendants No, 1 to 4 are entitled to special costs? If so, upto what extent? OPD.
4-A Whether the Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD.
5. Relief.
After recording oral as well as documentary evidence of the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit for declaration with permanent injunction vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2000. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar vide judgment and decree dated 07.01.2002, hence this civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that both the Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence available on record while passing the impugned judgments and decrees; that the impugned judgments and decrees are result of mis-reading and non-reading of evidence; that the impugned judgments and decrees are illegal, void and against the law and facts; that learned Courts have ignored the relevant law and arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners; that the learned appellate Court failed to consider all the points raised at the time of arguments in appeal; that the findings on Issues No, 1, 2 and 3 of the learned trial Court are illegal, void and against the law; that the Chairman, Municipal Committee without lawful authority and jurisdiction allotted the disputed plot to the respondents in violation of the Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the rules framed there-under; that the respondents while applying for the allotment of the disputed property sworn an affidavit, Exh. D-1, wherein he categorically stated that if there is any objection from the WAPDA, the respondents will not object to it and will vacate the suit property, as such, this civil revision be allowed, impugned judgments and decrees be set-aside and the suit of the petitioners be decreed as prayed for.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this civil revision and fully supported the impugned judgments and decrees. Learned counsel for the respondents has further contended that the impugned judgments and decrees are well reasoned and the learned Courts have committed no illegality or irregularity in delivering the same, therefore, this civil revision is liable to be dismissed. He has relied upon the judgments reported as Alamgir Khan through L.Rs, and others Vs. Haji Abdul Sittar Khan and others (2009 SCM R 54) and Noor Muhammad and others Versus Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCM R 1373).
6. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused with the able assistance with the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The pivotal question for determination by this Court is Issue No,
1. There is no denial to the fact that the patta malkiat was issued in favour of the respondents on 01.03.1992, which is Fah. P-2 but thereafter on the application of the Petitioners/Defendants No, 1 to 4, Defendant No, 5 cancelled patta malkiat on 26.12.1995 without issuance of any notice to the respondents. It has been established through the production of the evidence that the suit property which was transferred to the respondents is outside the boundary wall of the petitioners' premises and it was never transferred to the present Petitioners/ Defendants No, 1 to 4. Both the Courts below concurrently decided Issue No, 1 against the petitioners. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Exh.D-1 was sworn by the present respondent and he was estoppel to file the suit is misconceived as this document was not confronted to Respondent No, 1 nor any suggestion was given to him in this regard, while he appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and that the Chairman, Municipal Committee was not authorized to transfer the property to the petitioners, is also misconceived. It is an established principle of law that nobody can be condemned unheard and cancellation of patta malkiat in favour of the respondents, without notice, is a glaring example of the violation of the principle of Audi Alteram Partem and principle of natural justice. The concurrent findings of facts given by the Courts below do not suffer from any jurisdicdonal defect, material illegality or irregularity or mis-reading and non-reading of evidence which could be interfered by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The guidance is sought from the case reported as Noor Muhammad and others Vs. Mst. Azmat-e-Bibi (2012 SCM R 1373). The relevant part of the said judgment reads as under: "There is no cavil to the proposition that the jurisdiction of High Court under Section 115, C.P.C. is narrower and that the concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless Courts below while recording findings of fact had either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence or those are perverse and reflect some jurisdictional error ".
8. For what has been discussed above, this civil revision being devoid of any force is dismissed.