' This revision petition is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 3,5.2012 and 10.12.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Pakpattan Sharif and an Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, respectively, whereby suit of the respondents was decreed and an appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Shortly stated, the respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration along with perpetual injunction, contending therein that they had purchased the land measuring 10 Marlas (the description and details whereof have been set out in Paragraph No, 1 of the plaint), situated in village Hota, District Pakpattan Sharif, from the petitioner/defendant through sale Mutation No, 913 dated 22.3.1995. In its wake, they constructed a shop and covered a portion of the above-described land, while the rest of the land was lying in the shape of a Chappar. It was claimed that the plaintiffs were put in possession by the defendant himself, following a demarcation made by the revenue authorities. It is further alleged in the plaint that while attesting Mutation No, 913 dated 22.3.1995, the land purchased by the plaintiffs was shown to be 12 Marlas instead of 10 Marlas. This was a clerical error that crept in the record. In order to show their Mona fides, the plaintiffs impressed upon the defendant/petitioner to Seek correction of the revenue record. For this purpose, one of the plaintiffs, namely, Muhammad Abdullah accompanied the defendant to the Patwari Halqa. Instead of making an entry regarding the correction of the record, the Patwari Halqa in collusion with the defendant entered a sale Mutation No, 2016 dated 17.3.2009, by which Muhammad Abdullah, the aforementioned purportedly sold land measuring 2 Marlas to the defendant. Meanwhile, the defendant approached the revenue authorities, seeking to make correction of the figure 12, changing it into 10 in the sale Mutation No, 913 dated 22.3.1995.
Incidentally, his application was allowed by the Revenue Officer vide order dated 26.5.2009. In this way, the defendant succeeded in depriving the plaintiffs of four Marlas of land under the garb of seeking correction of the revenue record. The plaintiffs approached the District Officer (Revenue), Pakpattan Sharif to recall the order dated 26.5.2009 passed by the revenue officer, in view of the fraudulent sale Mutation No, 2016 dated 17.3.2009 by which the defendant had already got 02 Marlas of land re-transferred in his name. On the basis of these averments, declaration was sought by the respondents/plaintiffs that the alleged sale Mutation No, 2016 dated 17.3.2009 was the outcome of fraud and misrepresentation.
3. The defendant/petitioner entered appearance and filed written statement, controverting all the assertions made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. It was specifically maintained by him that he purchased 02 Marlas of land from one of the plaintiffs, namely, Muhammad Abdullah for a consideration of Rs, 2,10,000/- and that no fraud was perpetrated upon him. As for the other contention of the plaintiffs that there was no warrant to make an entry regarding the correction of the record on 26.5.2009, he adopted the stance that the revenue authorities are vested with the authority to set the record straight and to rectify any error having crept in the record, which did not reflect the true intention of the parties.
4. Given the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- - "1. Whether the plaintiffs are owners of land measuring 10 Marlas as per Para No, 1 of the plaint? OPP
2. Whether Mutation No, 2016 dated 17.3.2009 in favor of defendant is against the law and facts and is an outcome of fraud and same is liable to be cancelled/set aside? OPP 3 Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action and suit is not further proceedable in present form? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiffs have not approached this Court with clean hands? OPD
5. Whether the defendant has purchased the land in issue through Mutation No, 2016 dated 17.3.2009, in consideration of Rs, 2,10,000/- and above said mutation has been sanctioned in accordance with law? OPD
6. Whether suit of the plaintiffs is false, frivolous and liable, to be dismissed? OPD
7. Relief."
5. Following the framing of the above-mentioned issues, the plaintiffs produced Muhammad Ilyas as P.W.2 and Muhammad Abdullah, one of the plaintiffs appeared as P.W.1. In documentary evidence, the plaintiffs produced copy of plaint filed in suit titled "Hameed Ullah u. Muhammad Esa" as Exh.P.1. Written statement in the afore-referred suit, copy of replication, copy of amended plaint, copy of order passed by an Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif, Copy of decree-sheet, copy of order passed by the District Officer (Revenue), and copy of register Haqdaran-e-Zamin for the years 20052006 were tendered as Exhs.P.2 to Exh.P.8, respectively.
6. In rebuttal, the defendant/petitioner examined Mazhar Fareed Patwari Halqa as D.W.1 and Muhammad Manzoor, his Special Attorney as D.W.2. In documentary evidence, the defendants produced Exhs.D.1 to Exh.D.13.
7. After an in-depth analysis of the evidence produced by the parties, the learned trial Court proceeded to decree the suit vide judgment and decree dated 3.5.2012. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by an Additional District Judge, Pakpattan Sharif. Hence this revision petition.
8. In support of this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the learned Courts below misapprehended the facts, misconstrued the documents and misapplied the law; that both the impugned judgments suffered from misreading and non-reading of evidence produced by the parties; that the findings recorded by the Courts below are erroneous; that wrong conclusions were drawn from the evidence, resulting in gross miscarriage of justice. He has severely criticized the approach adopted by the learned Courts below towards the resolution of the controversy in issue. According to him, the finding of both the learned Courts below to the effect that the petitioner did not enter the witness box for a simple reason that he did not want to be exposed during cross-examination, is fallacious. He adds that at the relevant time, the petitioner was confined to bed in Lahore and was not in a position to travel to the Court for recording his evidence.
9. It is pertinent to mention that after filing the revision petition, the petitioner filed an application bearing C.M.No, 2-C of 2015, seeking to produce additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The petitioner seeks to produce Allah Ditta son of Khan Muhammad Pattidar and Ubaid Ullah to prove the sale consideration regarding Mutation No, 2016 dated 17.3.2009. In support of this application, the learned counsel has stressed that the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses is essential to throw light on the nature of the transaction disputed by the respondents/decreeholders and to expose their falsehood. To fortify his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgments reported as "Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah and 9 others" (1992 SCM R 1778) and "Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Aslam and others" (PLD 1993 S.C.
336).
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record appended to the revision petition.
11. Prior to adverting to the main revision petition, it would be in order to first attend to the application moved by the petitioner for the production of additional evidence. During the course of arguments, a question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. Are in terms applicable to a revision petition filed under Section 115 C.P.C. To his Credit, he answered in the negative. However, he postulated that the principles underlying Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C. Might be invoked by the revisional Court with a view to meeting the ends of justice.
12. From a perusal of the record it has transpired that no application similar to the one moved before this Court was ever made before the learned trial Court or the learned appellate Court.
Therefore, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 27 C.P.C.
Furthermore, in all the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions, the Courts had allowed the admission of authentic public documents in evidence. In none of the cases, the party concerned was allowed to examine new witnesses to fill up lacunas in its case. Again, if this practice is allowed, it would be manifestly contrary to the provisions of Order XVI, Rule 1 C.P.C., which requires the parties to a suit to file a list of witnesses within seven days of the settlement of issues. The underlying object in enacting this provision is that the other party is not to be taken by surprise and it should know beforehand as to who would come forward to depose against it so that it might come prepared to impeach their credit. There is another aspect of the case. If his application of the petitioner for production of additional evidence is allowed, it would result in upsetting and overturning the impugned judgments and decrees, compelling the plaintiffs/respondents to start all over again. This is neither desirable nor permissible. In the case of "Muhammad Feroz v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali Khan" (2006 SCM R 1304), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that "no party is entitled to produce additional evidence in appeal, muchless at revisional stage unless considered necessary by the Court". To my mind, the evidence produced by the parties is sufficient to resolve the issues. Therefore, I find no valid reason to grant the prayer made by the petitioner through C.M.No, 2-C of 2015, which accordingly is dismissed.
13. Since the petitioner had filed the instant revision petition with the sole object to get the case remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh and C.M.No, 2-C of 2015 was filed by him to achieve this object, the findings of the learned Courts below were not seriously challenged. In the absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of the learned Courts below, the jurisdiction of this Court to disturb of the concurrent findings is limited, as has been consistently held by the apex Court in the cases reported as "Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others" (PLD 1983 S.C, 53), "Muhammad Feroze and others v. Muhammad Jamaat Ali" (2006 SCM R 1304), "Shaft Muhammad and others v. Khanzada Gul and others" (2007 SCM R 368) and "Mst.
Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another" (2014 SCM R 1469). I have gone through the impugned judgments. They are well-reasoned and well-argued. They cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as perverse nor are they based on inadmissible evidence. They did not cause any grave injustice to the petitioner either.
14. Since no misreading and non-reading of evidence on the part of the learned Courts below has been shown nor any material irregularity has been committed by them in arriving at the conclusions, which could fairly be drawn from the evidence produced by the parties, the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are unexceptional. Consequently, I find no merit in this revision petition, which accordingly is dismissed in limine.