AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this civil revision petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 6-11-2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Chiniot whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 13-1-2009 whereby suit for possession filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-petitioner on 11-5-2002 filed a suit for possession against respondents-defendants on the basis of an agreement dated 6- 6-1975 allegedly by Muhammad Sadiq son of Qadir Bakhsh the predecessor of the defendants- respondents. It is stated in Para 2 of the plaint that as on the purchase of suit property a preemption suit was filed against the plaintiff, therefore, the suit property was given "()" to said Muhammad Sadiq for defeating the suit for pre-emption. Written statement was filed. Suit was contested. Learned trial court framed the issues, invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their respective oral as well as documentary evidence. After closing the trial, vide judgment and decree dated 13-1-2009 learned trial court dismissed the suit. Appeal was preferred, which also met the same fate. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that plaintiff-petitioner proved the agreement Exh.P.1, therefore, states that both the courts below fell in error while ignoring the valuable evidence produced by the plaintiff-petitioner and wrongly dismissed the suit as well as appeal. Further states that when property was given to the predecessor of the defendants by the plaintiff himself, therefore, suit cannot be termed to be time barred. Argues that plaintiff even proved that predecessor of the respondents purchased the property which was 1/2 marla in total which has been ignored by both the courts below and states that now the respondents are in possession of the property more than 31/2 marlas, therefore, prays for setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by both the courts below and for decree of the suit.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that the suit for possession has been filed on the basis of title, therefore, plaintiff was bound to show and plead the basis of his title on the suit property but there is no mention about the title of the plaintiff himself but on the basis of Iqrar Nama and challenging the validity of title document of Muhammad Sadiq the predecessor of the respondents, without showing title the suit has been filed which was not competent. Further states that Exh.D1/A the gift deed of suit property by said Muhammad Sadiq in favour of his grand children was written by Abdul Hafeez plaintiff himself as he is a deed writer; that there are concurrent findings recorded by the two courts below and this Court is not required to re-assess or re-evaluate the evidence produced by the parties. Learned counsel further referred the findings of the both the learned courts below where the evidence of the parties in the shape of documents as well as oral evidence has been discussed with minor details and the learned courts below came to the conclusion on the basis of admissions made by the witnesses and the plaintiff himself that suit is not competent.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.
6. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is valid one that when a suit is filed under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, that suit for possession is filed on the basis of ownership of the plaintiff. In this case it seems that plaintiff is claiming the possession on the basis of some "Iqrar Nama" and further showing defect in the title documents of the predecessor of the defendants. Copies of these documents have not been produced. The reference of these documents is in the statement of DW-3 Muhammad Khalid and the same has not been produced.
The petitioner of civil revision is bound under the law to produce certified copies of complete pleadings, evidence oral as well as documentary and if the petitioner is unable to comply with the mandatory A provision of section 115 of the C.P.C. With regard to production of certified copies of documents with the revision, the revision petition can be-,dismissed on this score only or at least that document is presumed against the case of the plaintiff. Even it is not denied that -the said "Hibba Nama" was about the suit property. It is also_not denied that the scribe of the said document was not the plaintiff-petitioner Abdul Hafeez. Learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced the arguments that as the parties come to Deed Writer and get the deeds written from the Deed Writer, Deed Writer is not bound by the recitals of the deed. I am afraid that if anyone comes to a Deed Writer and ask him to write a- deed about the property of the Deed Writer and he without any objection writes the same, how it is logical and believable. Both the courts below have minutely scrutinized the evidence, even the learned first appellate court has given findings while referring the portion of the statements of the plaintiff-petitioner himself and his witnesses wherein it is clear that plaintiff has admitted at the time of his alleged purchase of property that Muhammad Sadiq was in possession of the said property and further that Muhammad Sadiq refused to write Stamp Paper in his favour, therefore, writing was made on the plain paper and it is in the writing of the plaintiff himself. In this view of the matter, I am unable to disagree with the findings recorded by both the courts below by preponderance of evidence produced by the parties on the file as well as some admissions made by the plaintiff himself. Furthermore, I am of the view that as ordinarily in the PTDs there are specifications of the property and no measurement of the property is mentioned, therefore, this fact ever led to the litigation between the parties and in this case it seems that as the plaintiff is a Deed Writer and according to his stance he is in this profession since 1975 and there is allotted house in his favour in which he is residing, it seems that by seeing the documents of Muhammad Sadiq predecessor of defendants when he saw some discrepancies with regard to the measurement of the property transferred in the name of Muhammad Sadiq by the Settlement Department, he opted to prepare receipt Exh.P.1 to grab the property of defendants-respondents.
With regard to the signatures there are findings of the courts below that these signatures are not of Muhammad Sadiq.
7. So far as suit for pre-emption is concerned, learned counsel was asked more than once that what is the logic for not taking the possession of the suit property due to the pre-emption suit by someone and further that why Muhammad Sadiq was in possession of the suit property before alleged purchase by the plaintiff and further in which capacity, learned counsel failed to respond that why and in what capacity Muhammad Sadiq was in possession of the suit property when allegedly same was purchased by the plaintiff from the previous owner and further no explanation or reason has also been advanced that why the possession was not taken by the plaintiff at the time of purchase of the suit property due to pre-emption. Presumably a suit of pre-emption would have been filed near about one year after the purchase of the property by the plaintiff, therefore, this reason advanced and explanation given is also not logical and not sustainable, therefore, both the courts below have not found this reason correct for agreement Exh.P.1. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction has been made out. For invoking jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. Petitioner was bound to show some misreading or non-reading or any jurisdictional defect committed by the courts below against the rights of the petitioner but no such defect has been highlighted.
8. As the respondents have been wrongly engaged in this litigation for a period of more than a decade; therefore, in view of above, this petition stands dismissed with a special cost of Rs:50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only).