' MUHAMMAD YOUNIS THAHEEM, J.---Through instant revision petition, the petitioner has questioned the judgment and decree dated 23.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-III, Swabi vide which the judgment and decree dated 10.012013 of learned trial Court of Civil Judge-I, Swabi was maintained and appeal was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit against the appellant/defendant for possession of suit land and permanent injunction to the effect that the respondents/plaintiffs are owners in the column of cultivation of the suit land pertaining to jumabandi for the years 2003/2004, fully detailed in the plaint in shape of house situated at moza Maneri Payan, however the predecessor of the respondents/ plaintiffs has given permission to the appellant/defendant to reside in the suit house and they also told to them that whenever the respondents/ plaintiffs wanted to include the suit house with masjid, the same will be vacated for the extention and construction of masjid but the appellant/ defendant refused to vacate the suit house.
3. Respondent/defendant was summoned, on appearance written statement was submitted. On divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues; 1) Whether the plaintiff has got a cause of action?
2) Whether the suit is within time?
3) Whether suit is bad in its present form?
4) Whether plaintiffs are stopped to sue due to their own conduct?
5) Whether suit is liable to be dismissed due to mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties?
Whether defendant is owner in possession of the suit house on the basis of exchange?
7) Whether suit is hit by the principle of res judicata?
8) Whether defendant is entitled for the improvement/construction of suit property/house?
9) Whether plaintiffs are owners of the disputed house?
10) Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for?
11) Relief.
4. After framing of issues both the parties recorded their respective evidence as they wished to prove their respective stance and upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court after hearing arguments of both the learned counsel, decreed the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 10.01.2013.
5. The defendant, the present petitioner being feeling dissatisfied from the order, judgment and decree of the learned trial Court preferred regular civil appeal before the Court of learned District Judge, Swabi and same was entrusted to learned appellate Court of Additional District Judge-HI, Swabi for disposal. After hearing, dismissed the same appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 23.05.2014. Aggrieved from the judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court as well as learned trial Court, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision petition.
6. Arguments heard and record perused.
7. From the perusal of record it reveals that the respondent Siddique Akbar and others filed suit for possession for an area measuring 4 Marla in shape of house which was given to the petitioner by the predecessor of plaintiffs/respondents in his lifetime as licensee to petitioner on the condition that whenever they felt need for their personal use or to annex the same for the extension of adjacent mosque, the petitioner shall vacate the same.
8. In the year 2000 the plaintiffs/respondents asked the petitioner to vacate the same but on his refusal was forced to file instant suit for possession and permanent injunction.
9. It is pertinent to mention that both the parties are related inter-se with each other and from the documentary evidence on record produced by Patwari Halqa who appeared as PW1 and deposed that the respondents are owners in suit Khata bearing Khasra No,3577 which is lying on record as EXPW1/1. The respondents are owner in the said Khasra in column of cultivation while petitioner is not owner in same Khata as well as in the said Khasra number. On record EXPW1/3 is Naqsha-e- Tasweeri of the said house which has been shown in the possession of petitioner/defendant. The Patwari Halqa during examination in chief admitted it correct that adjacent to the mosque is lying suit house. During cross- examination Patwari Halqa was not put a single suggestion that petitioner/defendant is owner in Khata or in said Khasra. PW2 is the statement of respondent on his own behalf and on behalf of other respondents being their attorney who narrated the same facts as alleged in the plaint and was not cross-examined that this house was purchased by him through an unregistered deed or in lieu of exchange and is his ownership.
10. Zar Wali petitioner recorded his statement as DW2 who deposed that this house is his ownership and was given to him by the plaintiffs in exchange in lieu of his house transferred to the predecessor of the present plaintiffs/respondents. In his examination in chief he had not disclosed any detail or whereabouts of that house or landed property given in exchange to the predecessor of the respondents. He in his written statement raised two pleas, one that he is owner of the suit land in lieu of exchange agreement and the other that civil suit was filed by his brother Rohul Amin which was dismissed so the suit of plaintiffs/ respondents is hit by the principle of res judicata. The learned counsel for petitioner also annexed a document with the petition about documentary proof of exchange. From the perusal of this document it divulges that it is undated and it has not been scribed on stamp paper nor scribed by any petition writer nor was annexed at the time of submission of written statement nor was proved according to law under Qanun-eShahadat nor had raised this plea before the learned appellate Court and for'the first time is raising this ground at revisional stage. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that this case be remanded by providing him opportunity to prove the aforesaid document is not enable. At this belated stage the petitioner cannot raise such ground or argue the case which has not been pleaded earlier. Moreso, the argument of learned counsel for petitioner that his brother has moved an application for impleadment and the above said document was annexed with his application so learned trial Court as well as appellate Court had not taken judicial notice of that document and had failed to exercise their jurisdiction vested in them properly is not worth consideration.
11. From the perusal of statement of petitioner appeared as DW2 and from the trend of his cross- examination on Saddique Akbar (PW2) it divulges that petitioner was not in possession of that above said document at that time as same document was not annexed in view of Order XII and Order XIII of C.P.C. And in this respect the superior Courts for and again had held that the above provisions of law are to be applied at relevant time and in this respect reliance is placed on the judgment (PLD 1994 Lahore 298) titled Mut All v. Manzoor and another wherein it has been held that the parties under law are bound to annex all those documents upon which they are placing their reliance at the time of submission of their pleadings or thereafter according to the manner which law has prescribed had not adopted that legal course by the petitioner at relevant stage now cannot agitate the same at this belated stage.
12. So from the evidence on record it is abundantly proved that suit house is ownership of plaintiffs/respondents which has been decreed by the learned trial Court by adverting to all legal aspects of the case. Respondents had successfully proved their case through cogent, reliable evidence both oral as well as documentary and no exception could be taken in this behalf.
13. The circumstances of the case do not warrant interference of this Court as no any illegality misreading or non-reading of the evidence has been pointed out by the petitioner. Thus, the petition in hand being devoid of merits stand dismissed.