' GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J.---This Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20th July, 2006 and 8th March, 2007 respectively passed by learned Qazi, Kalat and Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat Division at Mastung, whereby suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, seeking declaration and permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries regarding occupancy tenant was decreed and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs instituted a suit against petitioners/defendants Nos.1 to 24 seeking declaration, permanent injunction and correction of revenue record in the Court of Qazi, Kalat, with the averments that the land bearing Kawait No,1 Khatooni No,25, Khasra Nos. 1, 2, 110 to 116, measuring 925 rods 8-pols, situated in Monza Zehrazai, Mungchar, District Kalat was owned by Nawab Major Mir Ghous Bakhsh Raisani and others while the grandfather of the respondents/plaintiffs namely Mir Abdul Aziz son of Mir Bahadur Khan, had purchased 3/5 shares of the right of tenancy of the disputed land from Rasool Baksh son of Murad Bakhsh Baratezai in consideration of Rs,570 through sale deed (Sanad) dated 13th of Shawal, 1352 Hijri, whereas the remaining 2/3 share was given to Mir Abdul Aziz by Mir Ahmad Khan through Sanad in the month of Rajab, 1364 for cultivation purposes on certain conditions. Since then Mir Abdul Aziz and after his death the father of plaintiffs/respondents and now the plaintiffs/respondents are in possession and occupation of the land as tenant. It was further averred in the plaint that now the respondents/plaintiffs came to know that right of cultivation in the revenue record had been recorded in the name of fore fathers of the petitioners/defendants. It was prayed in the plaint that:- {{URDU TEXT}}'
3. The petitioners/defendants defended the suit by filing their written statements separately, raising certain legal and factual objections regarding maintainability of the suit. The pro forma respondents/ defendants Nos.4 to 9 were proceeded against ex parte. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Qazi, Kalat framed the following issues:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
4. The respondents/plaintiffs in support of their claim produced four witnesses and also got recorded their own statement, whereas, the petitioners/defendants produced three witnesses and also got recorded their statements through their attorney and on conclusion of trial the learned trial Court after hearing the parties' counsel rejected the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 7th June 2002. The respondents/plaintiffs being aggrieved of the judgment/decree, filed appeal before Majlis-e-Shoora, Kalat at Mastung. The appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 17th August 200/ partly accepted the appeal and after setting aside the judgment/decree dated 7th June 2002, the matter was remanded back to the trial Court with the directions to provide opportunity to the plaintiffs to implead the legal heirs of Nawab Ghous Bakhsh Raisani as defendants by filing amended plaint and after filing the amended written statement, recording the necessary issues as well as evidence of the parties if any and to decide the case afresh on merits.
5. The remand order of the 'appellate Court was challenged by the respondents/plaintiffs before this Court by filing Civil Revision Petition No,270 of 2002, but the same was not pressed and vide order dated 16th December 2005 the petition was dismissed.
6. After remand of the matter to the Court of Qazi, Kalat the respondents Nos.1 to 3/plaintiffs filed amended title of the plaint. The petitioners/defendants filed amended written statement, whereas the pro forma defendants/respondents Nos.4 to 9 admitted the contentions of the plaintiffs in their written statement, but the defendants/respondents Nos.10 to 12 filed their separate written statements, denying the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents. The record of the case reveals that respondents/defendants Nos.4 to 9 after filing their written statement failed to appear before the trial Court, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte and the trial Court proceeded with the suit, framed following fresh issues:-- {{URDU TEXT}}
7. The record further revealed the fact that opportunity for producing witnesses was provided to both the parties but they did not produce any further evidence and relied upon the statement of witnesses already produced. On conclusion of trial learned Qazi, Kalat after hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants vide impugned judgment and decree dated 20th July 2006. Dissatisfied from the judgment and decree of the trial Court the petitioners filed an appeal before Majli-e-Shoora, Kalat Division at Mastung, who dismissed the appeal after hearing the parties vide judgment and decree dated 8th March 2007. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees preferred the instant civil revision petition before this Court.
8. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Buzdar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are the result of misreading and mis- appreciation of evidence. He further contended that the petitioners are recorded tenants and in possession of the land in dispute, which fact was proved by the petitioners through oral as well as documentary evidence but the same was not taken into consideration on the sole basis of the letter of respondent No,4, which letter could not be made basis for passing of decree in favour of respondents/defendants. He further maintained that the original owners i,e, respondents Nos.4 to 9 after filing written statement did not appear before the trial Court to prove the contents of their written statement and failed to produce evidence to prove their plea taken in the written statement.
9. On the other hand Mr. Attaullah Langov, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 3, supported the impugned judgments and decrees and further submits that the learned trial Court in view of the admission made by the respondents Nos.4 to 9 in their written statement and after appreciating of evidence on record had rightly decreed the suit, which was maintained by the appellate Court. He further maintained that judgments of both the Courts are in consonance with the evidence on record.
10. Mr. Muhammad Usman Yousufzai, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.4 to 9 while defending the impugned judgments and decrees argued that the respondents Nos.4 to 9 were the original owners of the land in dispute, who had filed written statement and stated in their written statement that the petitioners have no concern with the disputed property and the respondents Nos.1 to 3 are their tenants, thus the learned trial Court was justified to decree the suit under Order XII, Rule-6, C.P.C. And the learned appellate Court dismissed the appeal of petitioners. In support of his contention the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following judgments:--
(i) Muhammad Rauf v. Muhammad Abbas (1994 SCMR 973)
(ii) Rehman v. Yara (2004 SCMR 1502)
(iii) G.R. Syed v. Muhammad Afzaal (PLD 2007 Lahore 93)
(iv) Amir Ali v. Indus Entertainment (Pvt). (2004 YLR 1576)
(v) Ghulam Ishaq Khan v. Shafi Ullah Khan (2011 CLC 921)
11. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record available on the file. Perusal of the record would reveal that the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 3 have instituted the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and correction of revenue entries against the defendants/petitioners and pro forma respondents to the effect that the grandfather of the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 3 Mir Abdul Aziz had purchased 3/5 shares of the title of occupancy tenants of suit land (Buzgari) on 13th Shawal, 1352 Hijri from Rasool Bakhsh Baratizai, while remaining 2/3rd share in the month of Rajab, 1364 Hijri from Mir Ahmad Khan Raisani on certain conditions. The petitioners/defendants at the very outset, disputed the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and claimed that they are recorded tenants and in possession of the land in dispute, thus in the given circumstances, the sale deedslSanads were to be proved by the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 3 in accordance with law. Both the Courts below based impugned judgments/decrees on written statement filed by pro forma respondents Nos.4 to 9. The plaintiffs/respondents are claiming their possession and tenancy (Bazgari) on the basis-of document i,e, Sanads dated 13th of Shawal 1352 and Rajab 1364 Hijri of the disputed land, which have been produced by the respondent No,1 in his statement in support of their claim, but the same was neither marked nor exhibited by the trial Court. Both the documents have been written on plain paper, therefore, genuineness of these documents is doubtful. The learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents Nos.1 to 3 on the basis of written statement filed by the defendants/pro forma respondents Nos.4 to 9 as well as the letter sent to the Court by defendant/pro forma respondent No,4 in response to the letter written by Qazi, Kalat to him. It is an admitted fact that the said pro forma respondents after filing written statement did not appear before the trial Court as witness for recoding their statements nor the letter was produced by them in evidence in support of the claim of respondents Nos.1 to 3, as such, they have been subjected to the cross-examination, hence this version through written statement cannot be relied under the law. It is a settled law that pleadings of the parties are not substitute of evidence and it being not substantive evidence. The averments made in the pleadings would carry no weight unless proved from the evidence in the Court. It is also a settled law that a document not admissible in evidence cannot be seen or looked into by the Court even if it is exhibited without any objection. In this regard reliance may be placed on case titled as Muhammad Yousuf Khan Khattak v. S.M. Ayub (PLD 1973 Supreme Court 160). The evidence produced by the respondents No,1 to 3 was not supporting their claim and it does not inspire confidence. Both the Courts below have not passed the judgments and decrees in accordance with law and facts of the case. Furthermore, the learned Courts below have committed error relying upon the written statement filed by respondents Nos.4 to 9 and letter written by respondent No,4. It is also settled law that initial burden of proof is on the party, who alleges its claim. It is also a settled law that statement made in the written statement cannot be treated as evidence in the case. In this regard reliance is placed on the following judgments: (i ) Khair-un-Nisa v. Muhammad Ishaque (PLD 1972 SC 25)
(ii) Overseas Pakistanis Foundation v. Syed Mukhtar Ali Shah (2007 SCMR 569)
(iii) Abdul Majid v. Muhammad Ali Shamim (2000 SCMR 1391).
' The judgments referred to on the point are distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the case.
12. So far as the concurrent findings of the Courts below are concerned, normally, the same are not interfered within the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 C.P.C. However, if the Courts below have committed error of law, which has caused grave injustice resulting in the miscarriage of justice, then the High Court does interfere while sitting in its revisional jurisdiction.
Reliance is placed on Hamayun Sarfraz Khan v. Noor Muhammad (2007 SCMR 307) and Mubarik Ali v. Amroo Khan (2007 SCMR 1714).
13. For what has been discussed above, the findings of the Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of the evidence. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Majlis-e-Shoora Kalat Division at Mastung dated 8th March 2007 and judgment and decree dated 20th July 2006 passed by learned Qazi, Kalat are set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs/ respondents Nos. 1 to 3 is dismissed with no order as to costs.