' AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.---Through this revision petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 19.1.2000, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed upholding the judgment and decree dated 23.2.1999, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sialkot, whereby suit filed by the respondents was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents No.1 to 7/plaintiffs on 13.2.1993, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction challenging therein Mutation No.146, sanctioned on 9.9.1979, whereby land measuring 20 kanals 8 marlas was transferred in the name of Ghulam Muhammad, predecessor of the plaintiffs and Shah Muhammad, petitioner/defendant. According to the case of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7 Shah Muhammad and Ghulam Muhammad were real brothers, they were migrates from Jammu & Kashmir and land was allotted to Ghulam Muhammad but at the time of conferment of proprietary rights defendant Shah Muhammad who was his real brother and influential person got sanctioned the impugned mutation. The same was challenged through the suit in hand. Written statement was filed and the suit was contested. The learned trial Court framed the issue and invited the parties to adduce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 23.2.1999. Appeal was preferred against the aforesaid judgment and decree, which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 19.1.2000, hence, the instant revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the suit was clearly time barred as the impugned mutation was sanctioned on 9.9.1979 and the same has been challenged through the suit in hand, which was filed on 13.2.1993; that in accordance with the prevalent scheme the land was to be allotted in the name of the head of the family and at the time of sanction of mutation in accordance with letter No.1740/2549/78, issued by the Board of Revenue, the land was to be confirmed in the name of every member of the family, therefore, in accordance with law the mutation has been rightly sanctioned; that Ghulam Muhammad, the original plaintiff, never appeared in the witness box; that the statement of P.W.3 Rehmat Ali is in contradiction with the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs in the shape of jamabandis, which are available on the file as Exh. P-2 to Exh. P-6; that the learned Courts below have wrongly relied upon the photo copy of the challan for payment of price; that even the payment of price which is admitted by the plaintiffs at least shows that transaction of transfer of property was in the knowledge of the plaintiffs; that the same was incorporated in the jamabandi after sanction of the mutation, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and that both the Courts below have ignored the impact of "Mark A & B", the general power of attorney by Shah Muhammad in favour of Ghulam Muhammad and its Abtal Nama.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents argues that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts below and this Court ordinarily does not interfere in the concurrent findings of the Courts below; that the plaintiffs/respondents No.! To 7 have fully proved the case pleaded by them and that the application for permission of additional evidence is also not maintainable to produce "Mark A & B" in evidence.
5. I have noticed that C.M. No. 2-C of 2000, has been filed for permission to produce in evidence "Mark A&B". The respondents have filed the reply of this C.M. In my view the already available evidence on the file is sufficient to decide the matter in issue, therefore, there is no need to grant permission to produce the said evidence through C.M. No.2-C of 2000, which is disposed of accordingly.
' So far as C.M. No.1-C of 2012, is concerned through which notification/letter No.1740/2549/78, issued by the Board of Revenue, has been sought to be produced on record was allowed by this Court vide order dated 31.5.2012, therefore, judicial notice can be taken of This document.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and have also gone through the evidence with their able assistance. The basic question involved in this suit whereby a mutation was challenged which was sanctioned on 9.9.1979 and the suit was filed on 13.2.1993. I have noticed that this mutation has been entered on 11.4.1979, on the basis of Robkar from the Court of Tehsildar as mentioned in column No.14 of Exh. D-1, which is certified copy of the impugned mutation, the Patwari has referred the Robkar meaning thereby that this mutation has been entered and sanctioned on the basis of order dated 29.3.1979, passed by the Court of Tehsidlar Sialkot. The order of Tehsildar dated 29.3.1979, has been mentioned in column No.12 of Exh. D-1. When questioned to the learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 7 whether the order of the Tehsildar is on the file or whether that order was challenged before any higher forum or has been challenged in the suit in hand the answer is in the negative. I am astonished that the only question determinable in the lis was the question whether the mutation is against the order referred in column No.14 of the mutation passed by the Tehsildar Sialkot or not and whether the order passed by the Tehsildar was in accordance with law or not and whether the order of the Tehsidlar has been challenged in higher forum or not. As I have noticed above that even the order of Tehsildar is not on the file and the counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7 has admitted that the order of Tehsidlar has not been challenged before any higher forum in the revenue side and also admits that the same has not been challenged before the trial Court in the suit in hand. When it is the position that the mutation has been sanctioned on the basis of an order, which has never been challenged before the Civil Court in the suit in hand how both the Courts below granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7. It is a case of grave miscarriage of justice where both the Courts below even have not considered that what is the real matter in issue before them, therefore, it is an instance of misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the file, therefore, findings recorded by the Courts below whereby the mutation was set aside are absolutely against law. They have discussed the things which were not even relevant for the purposes of deciding the point in issue.##TSE## They have given preference to "Part Patwar" against "Part Sarkar" which is also against law. Certified copy of "Part Sarkar" of mutation is admissible in evidence and has evidentiary value against "Part Patwar". There is no cutting or over-writing in "Part Sarkar". The findings recorded by the*Courts below with regard to mutation in question are not sustainable under the law, therefore, are set aside.
7. So far as limitation is concerned when it was the case of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7 that they had paid the entire price for the transfer of land and the impugned mutation was sanctioned and incorporated in the revenue record the plaintiffs were bound under the law to show that their suit is within prescribed period of limitation. As the mutation has been sanctioned on 9.9.1979 and the suit has been filed on 13.2.1993, which has been filed after about 14 years of attestation of mutation, therefore, the limitation provided for declaratory suit under residuary article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, was applicable and the limitation provided therein is six years. The suit was badly time barred. The findings of both the Courts below with regard to the limitation are also against law, therefore, the findings recorded by both the Courts below and judgments and decrees are set aside by accepting the instant civil revision, the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 to 7 is dismissed with no order as to costs.