' SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.---This civil revision challenges the judgment and decree dated 15.07.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura whereby the appeal filed by the respondents' side against the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Ferozewala, District Sheikhupura decreeing the suit of the petitioner(s); has been allowed by dismissing the petitioner's suit.
2. Pithily, the facts leading to filing of the instant civil revision are that the present petitioner(s) filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents claiming that he being an exclusive owner of a Banjar (Barren) agricultural land, gave it to respondent No,4 by allowing him to make the same cultivable as tenant under the petitioner (s) with an undertaking that the petitioner(s) would not demand any share of Batai from respondent No,4 until and unless the land in question turned fully cultivable; that subsequently he left Pakistan for his livelihood and appointed his brother as attorney to look-after his interest in his absence qua the land in question; that later on, when his brother, being attorney of, the petitioner(s), contacted respondent No,4 for rendition of accounts and also for arrears of rent regarding tenancy, it transpired to him that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have fraudulently got the sale mutation No,49 attested on 14.11.1973 in their favour whereby the land in question was shown to have been transferred by the petitioner(s) by way of oral sale in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 against a consideration of Rs,22,000/-; that it also came to the knowledge of his brother that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had further transferred 3 Kanals out of the said land to respondent No,3 fraudulently through mutation No,370 dated 27.3.1985; that both the mutations are the result of fraud and forgery committed by the respondents in connivance with the revenue staff; that petitioner(s) neither transferred the land in question to respondents Nos.1 and 2 by receiving any consideration amount nor he appeared before the concerned officer for attestation of mutation No,49.
3. The suit was contested and out of divergent pleading of the parties, the learned trial court by framing issues, going through the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties and hearing their arguments, decreed the suit of the petitioner(s) against the respondents, vide judgment and decree dated 05.11.1995. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 preferred appeal against the said judgment and decree before learned lower Appellate Court, which was subsequently allowed vide judgment dated 04.06.1999 and by setting aside judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the matter was remanded to the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by remand order, the present petitioner(s) filed Civil Revision-No,1383 of 1999; which was allowed by this Court and matter was remanded to the learned lower Appellate Court, with the direction to decide the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties.
' Thereafter, the learned first appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 15.07.2006, accepted the appeal filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2, set aside judgment and decree dated 05.11.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed suit of the petitioner(s), which culminated in filing of the civil revision in hand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has argued that the impugned judgment and decree is against law and facts of the case. The petitioner(s) through cogent, reliable and confidence inspiring evidence proved fraud and forgery allegedly committed by the respondents at the time of attestation of mutation in question but the learned first Appellate Court by committing misreading and non-reading of evidence passed the impugned judgment and decree. The findings of the learned Trial Court with regard to question of limitation have wrongly been discarded by the learned first Appellate Court without assigning any cogent reasons. After denial of the petitioner(s) regarding oral sale and execution of any mutation pursuant to said oral sale in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 by appearing before revenue officer, the onus to prove valid execution of the mutation in question shifted upon the beneficiaries i.e, respondent Nos.1 and 2, but they have badly failed to discharge the same; even then, the learned first Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment and decree, which is nothing but a nullity in the eye of law, as the same is based on surmises and conjectures as well as wrong assumption of law. Impugned judgment and decree suffers from material irregularities and illegalities. Well reasoned judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court has been set aside by the learned first Appellate Court without proper appraisal of evidence and without giving sound reasoning, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. Findings, of the learned,, first Appellate Court are erroneous, which cannot be allowed to hold field further. Therefore, by allowing the civil revision in hand, the impugned judgment dated 15.07.2006 and decree signed by the learned lower Appellate Court on 15.06.2006 may be set aside, consequent whereof, the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court, may be restored. Relies on Muhammad Akram and another, v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688, Aurangzeb through L.Rs, and others v. Muhammad Jaffar and another 2007 SCMR 236 Supreme Court of Pakistan, Iqbal Ahmed v. Managing Director Provincial Urban Development Board, N. W.F.P. Peshawar and others 2015 SCMR 799-Supreme Court of Pakistan, Meraj. Din v. Mst.
Sardar Bibi and 5 others 2010 MLD 843-Lahore, Muhammad Yaqoob through legal heirs v. Feroze Khan and others 2003 SCMR 41; Fida Hussain through Legal Heirs Muhammad Taqi Khan and others v. Murid Sakina 2004 SCMR 1043 and Muhammad lqbal and another v. Mukhtar Ahmad through L.Rs, 2008 SCMR 855-Supreme Court of Pakistan.
5. Nay-saying the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner(s), the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos.1-a to 1-e and 2 has argued that the respondents/defendants proved their case by producing witnesses in whose presence, the deceased petitioner/ plaintiff by appearing before revenue officer got attested the mutation in dispute. The stance taken up by the petitioner that he was out of the country has not been proved as no evidence in a shape of passport was produced by the petitioner(s), while power of attorney was with regard to tenancy but the said attorney acted beyond his powers.. The learned first Appellate Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree while discussing each and every point as well as evidence in a minute way. Even otherwise, revision jurisdiction has limited scope. Therefore, civil revision in hand, may be dismissed. Relies on Bakht Baidar and another v.
Naik Muhammad and another 2004 MLD 341 Peshawar, Mst. Hassan Bano v. Wali-urRehman and 2 others 2007 SCMR 1344, Sughran Bibi v. Mst. Aziz Begum and 4 others 1996 SCMR 137, Muhammad Luqman v. Bashir Ahmad PLD 1994 Karachi 492, Sh. Fateh Muhammad v. Muhammad Adil and others PLD 2007 Supreme Court 460, Major (Retd) Barkat Ali and others v. Qaim Din and others 2006 SCMR 562, Muhammad Sajjad Hussain v. Muhammad Anwar Hussain 1991 SCMR 703, Unair Ali Khan and others v. Faiz Rasool and others PLD 2013 Supreme Court 190 and Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmad Lughmani and 10 others 1992 SCMR 1832.
6. Heard.
7. There is no cavil to the proposition that the beneficiary of a document has to prove its valid execution especially after denial of the same by its executant. In the present case, the petitioner, who is allegedly the owner of the said suit land has denied any oral sale or execution of mutation in question in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2 by appearing before revenue officer or receipt of any sale consideration in this regard; therefore the respondents Nos.1 and 2 were under heavy A burden to prove the valid execution of oral sale and pursuance to that mutation in question i.e, mutation No,49 dated 14.11.1973 but the witnesses produced by the respondents/defendants as D.W-1, D.W-2 had deposed that they did not know Abdul Rasheed nor they ascertained the identification but they made signatures on the asking of Tehsildar and Nazir Shah Patwari Halqa on the mutation in question i.e, mutation No, 49 dated 14.11.1973. Moreso, DW-3 deposed that signatures of Abdul Rasheed were not obtained on the mutation in question. In Fida Hussain through Legal Heirs Muhammad Taqi Khan and others v. Murid Sakina 2004 SCMR 1043 and Muhammad Iqbal and another v. Mukhtar Ahmad through L.Rs, 2008 SCMR 855-Supreme Court of Pakistan, it has been held:-- ' "Before entering into appreciation of evidence, we may recall that this Court on numerous occasions has categorically held that the mutation proceedings are not judicial proceedings and mutation do not at all happen to confer title. That, therefore, whenever the genuineness of any such mutation is challenged, the burden squarely lies on the parties relying upon the mutation to prove the actual transaction. Hakim Khan v. Nazeer Ahmed Lughmani 1992 SCMR 1832 can be referred to in this behalf. This Court in a recent judgment rendered in Muhammad Akram v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 SC 688 has categorically declared that mutation confers no title and once a mutation is challenged, the party relying thereon is bound to revert to the original transaction and to prove such original transaction which resulted into the entry of attestation of any such mutation".
Even, the written statement and evidence is silent with regard to entrance of actual transaction i.e, oral sale, because no date of agreement on which the parties agreed to sell the property in dispute or terms and conditions as well as time and place of such agreement and even names of witnesses have not been disclosed by the respondents/defendants in their written statement and evidence. Moreover, there is no evidence on record to suggest that when and where the possession of the suit property was delivered to the respondents, rather it was proved on record that possession of the suit property was with the respondent No,4, who was tenant under the petitioner(s). All these factors make the transaction in question result of fraud and misrepresentation.
' In addition to the above, Tehsildar while appearing in witness box deposed that proceedings of mutation were done in a common assembly at Qila Bhatian Wala on 14.11.1973 but statements of P.W-1 and P.W.-2, who are previous and present Patwari of Qila Bhatian Wala show that register Parrtal and Rappat Roznamcha Waqiati do not find mention the attesting of mutation No,49 in estate. Another aspect, which makes, it clear that mutation No,49 was not rightly executed is that same was allegedly attested by Tehsildar consolidation at Rehmanpura, Lahore despite the fact that consolidation proceedings were concluded prior to 1973 and he had no authority as such to attest the mutation in question. The above contradiction with regard to attestation of mutation leads to the conclusion that mandatory provisions of Section 42 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 were not adhered to/followed in stricto sensu which vitiate the whole proceedings germane to attestation of mutation No,49 dated 14.11.1973. This factum further finds support from the report of hand writing . Expert with regard to signatures of Abdul Rasheed on Ex.P-2, who reported that the same were not made by Abdul Rasheed. Therefore, it has been proved indubitably that mutation No,49 dated 14.11.1973 was result of fraud, forgery, impersonation, illegal, fictitious, without consideration, without authority and of course void as such ineffective on the rights of petitioner(s)/plaintiff. All facts have been overlooked rather ignored by the learned first Appellate Court and the cogent reasoning given by the learned Trial Court while passing the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1995 have been discarded illegally. In Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688, it has invariably been held that:-- ' "Mere entry of Roznamcha Waqiati alone is not the only requirement of section 42 of the Land Revenue Act. Numerous other steps were also to be necessary taken regarding which the High Court had no reason to advance."
8. Apart from the above, the issue with regard to limitation has also not been rightly tackled and taken up by the learned lower Appellate Court because it is, by now, a settled law that limitation does not run against a void order. Even otherwise, it was proved on record that petitioner through attorney gained knowledge about the attestation of mutation in question in late 1988 and instituted a suit on 29.04.1989. Article 120 of Limitation Act, 1908 provides filing of such suit within a period of six years from date of knowledge; meaning thereby, the suit after knowledge was within time, which fact and legal proposition was rightly discussed and interpreted by the learned Trial Court whereas the learned Appellate Court failed to interpret law on the subject in a proper and judicious way with independent mind. It is noteworthy that learned lower Appellate Court passed the impugned judgment and decree in a haphazard manner, as the decree sheet shows that appeal came up before it for hearing on 20.06.2006, while the judgment was recorded and signed has been shown to have been signed on 15.06.2006.
9. The learned first Appellate Court ought to have minutely scanned the evidence produced by the parties and would have interpreted law on the point of limitation in a proper way while applying independent judicious mind but it failed to do so.
10. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that revisional jurisdiction has limited scope is concerned, it can be observed that when the sub-ordinate, forums commit jurisdictional error or misread evidence or ignores material aspects affection very root of case suggesting perversity, the impugned judgment/order, can be interfered with while exercising revisional powers. In this regard, reliance is placed on Iqbal Ahmed v. Managing Director Provincial Urban Development Board, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and others 2015 SCMR 799-Supreme Court of Pakistan, wherein the Apex Court of the Country held:-- " So far as the point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the scope of civil revision is limited is concerned, this Court in Rozi Khan v. Nasir (1997 SCMR 1849) has candidly held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction could be appropriately invoked where subordinate forums had committed jurisdictional error or had misread evidence or had ignored material aspects affecting very root of case suggesting perversity. In Muhammad Mian v. Shamimullah (1995 SCMR 69) it is held that scope of revisional powers though hedged by conditions, is nevertheless vast and corresponds to a remedy of certiorari."
Further guidance in this regard has been sought from Nazim-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-Ul- Qamar and other 2016 SCMR 24 wherein it has been held:-- " It is settled law that ordinarily the revisional Court would not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the first two courts of fact but where there is misreading and non-reading of evidence on the record which is conspicuous, the revisional court shall interfere and can upset the concurrent findings, as well as where there is an error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the courts below and/or where the courts have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."
11. Each and every case has its peculiar facts and circumstances and the Courts have to evaluate the same with independent mind in order to administer safer justice. In this backdrop it is observed that the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents, with utmost respect to the same, has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. Therefore, it does not render any assistance or help to the respondents.
12. For the foregoing reasons and discussion while placing reliance on the judgments supra, the instant civil revision is allowed, impugned judgment and decree dated 15.07.2006 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court is set aside, consequent whereof the judgment and decree dated 05.11.1995 passed by the learned Trial Court decreeing the suit of the petitioner(s) stands restored.
No order as to costs.