' MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---Instant revision petition has been preferred against Judgment dated 17-12-2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Swabi, whereby appeal filed by the petitioners had been dismissed and the Judgment and decree dated 22-1-2011 passed by the learned trial court was upheld.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that .The petitioners filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and in alternate for possession of the suit land fully described in the heading of the plaint. The suit was contested by the respondents and the learned trial Court through Judgment dated 22-1-2011 decreed the suit. Feeling dissatisfied, petitioners preferred appeal which was also dismissed by the learned appellate Court through Judgment dated 17-12-2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned order dated 14-3-2007 passed by the DOR, Swabi was illegal, without jurisdiction and ab initio void, therefore the entries made on the basis of said order were also of no legal sanctity. It was further contended that the DOR has got no power to change the entry which were incorporated in record of right through settlement. It was also contended that the respondents preferred Suit No,33/1 which was dismissed on 5-9-2006, as the respondent failed to file amended plaint and appear on the date fixed, therefore was debarred to file application before Revenue Officer.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for respondents contended that attorney of petitioners namely Afsar Khan son of Aseem Khan recorded his statement as P.W.2.This witness was examined twice, firstly as attorney of the petitioner and secondly in capacity of Sub-Registrar, Swabi as DW-1. Being revenue official, he was acquainted that the revenue record and as per his duties all the necessary revenue record was under his custody. It was further contended that all the case develop by the respondents/defendants was duly admitted by the said attorney in his Court statement, therefore both the learned Court below has rightly none suited the petitioners. The attention of Court was drawn to section 167(VI) of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, wherein powers have been given to the Revenue Officer to correct the wrong entries.
' Arguments heard and with the valuable assistance of learned counsel for the parties record perused.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the property in dispute falls in share of one Dost Muhammad son of Qabeer through a registered document executed in the year 1897 which fact has duly been admitted correct by P.W.2 special attorney of the petitioners. Through register deed No,405 attested on 24-8-1943 this property was further transferred by Dost Muhammad son of Qabeer in favour of respondents and from that date the respondents are in exclusive possession of the property. The attorney of petitioners admitted this fact while deposing as DW-i. The long standing entry right from the year 1943 up till 19941995 remained in the name of respondents and for the first time when the same was altered, the respondents preferred application to the District Officer Revenue, Swabi for correction of entry in the record of right. After thorough enquiry and in the light of record made available to the DOR, the correction order was made on 14-3-2007 by.
DOR/Collector of the District. Neither any area was enhanced in favour of respondents nor the title or entitlement of the petitioners was disturbed, rather the entries were made with regard to the area already possessed and been incorporated in the revenue record prior to the wrong entry.
Even otherwise, it is the duty of the Revenue Officer concerned to make correction whenever any wrong entry is noticed by them.
6. It is well settled that revenue Officers, in terms of section 172(2)(VI) of West Pakistan Revenue. Act, 1967 were empowered to order correction of entry in the record of right, periodical record or Register of mutation. The only restriction made in this respect is that where question of title is involved then the provision of section 53 of the Act ibid would be invoked. Since in the case in hand no question of title was involved but it was a mere correction of entry, thus the powers exercise by the Revenue Officer were supported by law. It is also well established that whenever it is found that the long standing entry were wrongly disturb, all the efforts are made to revive the old entry by setting aside or by making correction of the wrong entry.
7. So far as the contention of learned counsel about production of additional evidence is concerned, the attorney of the petitioner was himself incharge of Sub-Registrar Office and all the documents required were in his custody. This witness produced the other registered deeds in the Court and affirmed their genuineness which were admittedly executed in favour of respondents.
Thus, there was no need to summon this witness again for production of any document which was already in the notice of petitioners and their attorney and was of no help to the petitioners. Rather the attorney himself introduced this document in cross-examination and its genuineness. No useful purpose would be served to summon this witness again. If such like applications/requests would be allowed there would be no end to litigation.
In view of what has been observed above, this petition being devoid of any force and is hereby dismissed.