Through this civil revision petitioner Province of Punjab has challenged the judgment & decree dated 02.09.2009 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal whereby appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed and the judgment & decree dated 22.04.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Sahiwal whereby suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent on 3.5.2000 filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction wherein he pleaded that Defendant No. 2 Secretary District Housing Committee Sahiwal launched a Scheme for allotment of plots in the year 1991. In the scheme there was specific quota for various persons mentioned below:-- {{URDU TEXT}} Plaintiff-respondent applied on the basis of being Engineer. His application was scrutinized and he was declared eligible for the allotment of plot under specific quota of engineers and a 7 marla Plot Bearing No. 308 in category "C" was allotted to him by the District Housing Committee consisting upon 5 members, the allotment was approved by the Chairman i.e. Deputy Commissioner.
Subsequently, a Letter No. DHC/SWL/2000/528 dated 20.4.2000 was written to the plaintiff- respondent by the Secretary, District Housing Committee, whereby he was directed, to supply the attested copy of Engineering Council Registration and copy of Engineering degree within 15 days.
Respondent was forced to file the suit. Written statement was filed, suit was contested. Learned trial Court framed the issues, invited the parties to produce their evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. Learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment & decree dated 22.4.2006. Appeal was preferred, which was dismissed by the learned first appellate Court vide judgment & decree dated 2.9.2009.
3. Learned AAG argues that for his entitlement respondent was required to provide the above referred documents though admits that before balloting his application was scrutinized, he was declared eligible and Plot No. 308 was allotted to him, states that when the requisite documents were not produced, therefore, his allotment cannot remain in the field and due to the litigation same has not so far been, cancelled. Further argues that afterwards the Government of the Punjab has relinquished its policy of allotment of plot of specific quota therefore, the plot cannot be given- to the plaintiff-respondent.
4. On the other hand, while relying upon 1997 SCM R 1606 "Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housing, Physical & Environmental Planning Department, Lahore versus Mehr Muhammad Amin Advocate and 2 others" and PLJ 2007 SC 811 "Government of Punjab through Secretary Housing & Physical Planning & Environmental Planning Lahore & others versus Muhammad Ismail Khan Bhatti" learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff argues that at the time of launching of relevant housing scheme and submission of application, the quota was available, therefore, if subsequently the Government has changed its policy that cannot affect the rights of the respondent-plaintiff retrospectively when the plot stood allotted to the respondent and allotment is still intact. Further argues that when allotment committee has declared the plaintiff-respondent eligible for allotment of plot and plot has been allotted and Chairman has approved the same then the Secretary Housing Committee has no power to ask the plaintiff-respondent to provide the above said documents. Argues that no specific degree of Engineering was mentioned in the conditions of allotment and further that admittedly the respondent is Diploma holder in engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Lahore in Session 1967 and at the time of application for allotment he was serving as SDO in the Water & Power Development Authority and states that even further certificates of Diploma and Certificate of Graduation issued by the competent forum have been produced in the evidence by the plaintiff from Exh. P.1 to Exh.P.18. Learned counsel for the respondent has further raised the objection that the revision has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation and further without payment of a single penny of Court fee the same was filed which was not competent and when the Court fee has been paid only then the revision can be considered to have been competently filed. Prays for dismissal of the revision petition on the ground that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded against the petitioners and further that revision petition is time barred.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record, evidence produced by both the parties as well as findings recorded by both the Courts below.
6. When questioned to the learned AAG whether the plot is still vacant, the answer is in the affirmative and whether the same has been cancelled from the name of the plaintiff-respondent, the answer is in the negative and further that whether the earnest money received from the plaintiff has been returned to him, the answer of this question is also in the negative and whether the plot in question has been allotted to any other person, the answer of this question is in negative. It means that the plot is still in the name of the plaintiff-respondent, his allotment is intact, his earnest money is with the petitioners and never returned to him, his allotment has never been cancelled, therefore, no question of return of earnest money.
7. I have gone through the document produced as Exh.P.1 i.e. the conditions of allotment for specific quota which are ambiguous in which no specific degree or certificate of any specific institution has been mentioned. Even various categories like {{URDU TEXT}} have been mentioned and with regard to their credentials no specific institution is mentioned that the certificate of which institution will be competent. In these circumstances, when in the first scrutiny the respondent-plaintiff was declared eligible and plot has been allotted to him, when no specific degree or certificate of specific institution has been mentioned in the conditions of allotment and there are concurrent findings of two Courts below, therefore, I am unable to disagree with the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and further I have observed that initially the revision has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation vide Diary No. 1154 on 18.12.2009.
On 21.12.2009 office raised various objections including the objection of 4 days' time barred and same was returned on 21.12.2009 with a direction to refile the same within seven days, after removing the objections. Petitioners opted to refile the same on 11.2.2010 vide Diary No. 118. I am noting with concern that a Court fee of Rs. 15/- was leviable upon this civil revision but initially the revision was filed without paying a single penny of the Court fee and the Court fee was paid on 11.2.2010. This conduct of the petitioners is though not appreciable but by non-payment of Court fee within limitation does not make the revision petition as time barred and further when originally the revision petition has been filed within prescribed period of limitation, if extra time is consumed for removing office objection, ordinarily consumption of the extra time in removing office objection also does not make it time barred under the Limitation Act. The time consumed for removing office objection is governed under the Lahore High Court Rules and Orders.
8. In this view of the matter, when there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below after complete and thorough examination of the evidence produced by both the parties, this Court cannot substitute the findings of the Courts below unless there is some misreading or non- reading of evidence on the part of the Courts below. No such misreading and non-reading is visible in the findings of the Courts below, therefore, no case for interference has been made out.
Resultant, this revision having no merit is hereby dismissed.