This revision petition was filed by the petitioner against judgment and decree dated 24-9-1973 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, whereby the suit for permanent injunction instituted by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased predecessor-in-interest of the respondents restraining it from interfering with his possession over the disputed land adjacent to his house as detailed in the plaint, was decreed.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this revision petition are that on 27-1-1971 Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased who claimed to be the transferee of house No. 1 situated in Street No. 38, Ichhra, Lahore, under P. T. D. No. 2010 dated 2-8-1963 issued by the Settlement Department in his favour, filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner restraining it from interfering with his possession over the land situated adjacent to the aforementioned house on the western side. He claimed that the said land had also been transferred to him along with the house by the Settlement Department. The suit was contested by the petitioner and in the written statement filed on its behalf some preliminary objections were also raised.
The learned trial Court framed the following issues for the disposal of the suit ;
(1) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form ? O. P. D.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to. Bring the present suit ? O. P. P.
(3) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land in dispute ? O. P. P.
(4) Whether the question of title in respect of the suit land has been finally decided in a previous suit ? If so, what is its effect ? O. P. P.
(5) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? O. P. D.
(6) Whether the suit is improperly valued for the purposes of court-fee ? O. P. D.
(7) Whether the written statement is not properly verified ? O. P. D.
(8) Whether the written statement requires court-fee ? O. P. P.
(9) Relief.
As the objections giving rise to issues Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were not pressed, the learned trial Court decided these issues against the party who had raised the objections. The main issue in the case was issue No. 3 which was decided by the learned trial Court against Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased. Consequently his suit was dismissed. In appeal, the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 3, was reversed, and a decree as prayed for by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased was passed against the petitioner. .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the finding of the learned Appellate Court on issue No. 3 on the ground that the evidence produced by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased to prove his claim of owner--ship of the disputed land was not reliable as the only document tendered in evidence by him was the photostat copy of plan Exh. P-1 which allegedly was prepared by Muhammad Feroze Settlement Inspector P. W. 2 on an application submitted by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased for the demarcation of the property transferred to him under the P. T. D.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the aforementioned plan was prepared by Muhammad Feroze P. W 2 without consulting any revenue record as admitted by him and as such the deposition to the effect that the disputed land was also a part of the house transferred to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased, was of little value. The learned trial Judge had rightly discarded the testimony of Muhammad Feroze P. W-2 and the oral evidence adduced by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased in support of his claim.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand has stated that plan Exh. P-1 was prepared by Muhammad Feroze P. W-2, Settlement Inspector in discharge of his official duty on an application submitted by Syed Nazir Hussain Shah to the Settlement Department for the demarcation of the property transferred to him under P. T. D. No. 2010. As the plan was also countersigned by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in token of its correctness, its authenticity cannot be questioned by the petitioner on any ground whatsoever. Learned counsel for the respondent has further stated .That the evidence adduced by the petitioner in rebuttal to show that the disputed land was sold to it by the Settlement Department is of no use as it has not been proved that the land comprising Khasra No. 7313 purchased by the petitioner from the Settlement Department also included the piece of the land which is the subject-matter of the suit. Lastly it has been contended by the respondents' counsel that the petitioner is not entitled to discretionary relief available under section 115, C. P. C. As the present revision petition was filed after more than eight months of the acceptance of the appeal of Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased. According to the endorsement made by the Copying Agency on the copies of the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court filed by the petitioner, the petitioner had applied for the copies on 27-11-1973 and the same were prepared on 22-1-1974. No plausible explanation has been given on behalf of the petitioner as to why the revision petition in this Court was filed after four months of the receipt of the aforementioned copies.
5. Admittedly the disputed piece of land which according to the respondents is a part of the house transferred to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased was an evacuee property. Both the petitioner and Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased claimed that the aforementioned piece of land had been transferred to them by the Settlement Department. Syed Nazir Hussain Shah tendered in evidence copy of P. T. D. No. 2010 whereby property No. S-XVIII-38-S-I, Ichhra, Lahore was transferred to him on 2-8-1963 by the Settlement Authorities. According to him along with the aforementioned property which is a residential house, disputed piece of land was also transferred to him. In support of his above claim, he relied on copy of plan Exh. P-1 which was prepared by Muhammad Feroze P.
W-2. Settlement Inspector on an application submitted by him for the demarcation of the property transferred to him under P. T. D. No. 2010. Muhammad Feroze P. W-2 stated that the disputed piece of land was also a part of-the house transferred to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased as is evident from the plan Exh. P-1. The correctness of this plan has been questioned by the petitioner on the ground that it was not prepared after examining the revenue record as admitted by Muhammad Feroze P. W-2 in his cross--examination. The mere fact that Muhammad Feroze did not examine the revenue record while demarcating the property transferred to Syed Nazi . Hussain Shah deceased, under P. T. D., does not mean that the demarcation was not carried out by him properly or that the disputed land did not form part of the house transferred to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased. After inspecting the spot, Muhammad Feroze P. W. 2 had found that the disputed piece of land also formed an integral part of the house transferred to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased.
He prepared the plan of the entire property transferred to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased which was duly approved by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The correctness of the plan and the demarcation carried out by Muhammad Feroze P. W: 2 cannot be questioned simply because Muhammad Feroze has stated that he had not examined the revenue record before preparing the plan. Plan Exh. P. 1 is an important piece of evidence which proves the claim of Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased that he had also acquired the disputed piece of land along with the house from the Settlement Department. The correctness of the plan could be challenged by the petitioner either by showing that no demar--cation of the property transferred to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased ha been carried out by the Settlement Department at all or that the disputed piece of land formed part of the land purchased by it from the Settlement Department. No attempt was made on behalf of the petitioner to question the factual statement made by Muhammad Feroze P.
W. 2 that he had carried out the demarcation of the property transferred to Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased. The evidence produced by the petitioner in support of its claim to the disputed piece of land also failed to establish that the disputed piece of land was a part of Khasra No. 7313 which was purchased by I from the Settlement Department. Under the circumstances, the finding o the learned Additional District Judge on issue No. 3 in favour of Syed Nazir Hussain Shah deceased is correct and is not open to question. It is based on the proper appraisal of the evidence and calls for no interference by this Court.
6. There is also considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since this revision petition has not been filed within reasonable period of the acceptance of the appeal by the learned Additional District Judge, and no explanation is forthcoming for the delay, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under section 115, C. P. C.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.