SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH, J.----Impugned herein are the judgments and decrees of the learned Civil Judge-IX Abbottabad dated 14.907.2011 and that of the learned District Judge Abbottabad dated 19.11.2014. The former partially decreed the suit of the petitioners, while the latter dismissed their prayer and allowed appeal of the respondents through a consolidated judgment, hence, the instant civil revision.
2. Briefly stated facts, leading to the instant petition, are that initially the petitioners/plaintiffs, being representatives of Hindu Community, filed a suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration-cum-possession in respect of the suit property, detailed in the heading of the plaint, notice whereof was given to the latter, who contested the suit by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint. The learned trial court, after receiving replication from the petitioners/plaintiffs, rejected the plaint, however, the petitioners/plaintiffs, feeling dissatisfied from the said judgment, preferred an appeal which too met the same fate, thus, a civil revision was filed before this Court, which was allowed on 07.02.2013 by remanding the matter to the learned trial court for decision afresh on merits, after framing of proper issues and recording of evidence of both the parties.
3. After remand, the learned trial court directed the parties to adduce their evidence, who accordingly produced their respective witnesses and out of divergent pleadings of the parties as many as eleven (11) issues were framed including relief. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court, vide its judgment and decree dated 14.07.2014 partially decreed the petitioners / plaintiffs' suit only upto the extent of property known as Shive Temple subject to its renewal of occupancy rights as per law, rules, regulations and other conditions, while rest of plaintiffs' claim over rest of suit property was turned down. Both the parties preferred appeals, against the partial judgment and decree dated 14.07.2014 of the learned trial court before the learned appeal court, who vide its judgment and decree dated 19.11.2014 . accepted the respondents/defendants' Appeal No, 51/13, while setting, aside the partial judgment and decree of the learned trial court to the extent of Shive Temple, subject to renewal of occupancy rights, whereas dismissed the Appeal No,50/13 of the petitioners, hence, the instant civil revision.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court and partial decree of the learned trial court vide which rest of the suit was dismissed, are the result of wrong appreciation of facts and law involved in the case, thus, resulted into gross miscarriage of justice, being based on misreading and non-reading of the material available on record of the case. They further maintained that the disputed property is the sole place of worship for Hindu Community and there .is no other substitute, despite the fact that Shive Temple is in existence but still the respondents are not allowing them for worship, hence, they prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court, as well as partial decree of the learned trial court upto the extent of the dismissal of their suit and prayed for acceptance of their suit in toto.
5. On the other hand, while rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned DAG assisted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 vehemently contended that there is no restriction or bar on the worship of the petitioners in Shive Temple, which is very much in use of Hindu Community, however, they defended the impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate court and solicited for dismissal of the instant civil revision.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record with their valuable assistance.
7. Perusal of the plaint reveals that the petitioners/plaintiffs while disclosing themselves to be the members of Balmik Sabha Hindu Community, have claimed the ownership of Survey No, 221/25 (House of Worshipper), Survey No, 23/1 (Temple), Survey No, 23 (Thakar Wara) and Survey Nos, 74, 75 and 147 (Guest House attached with Temple, Shive Temple J. Shankir) on the basis of being lease holders of the above property.
8. It transpires from the record of that case, that petitioners/plaintiffs recorded statement of PW-1, Muhammad Shafqat, LDC MEO Office Abbottabad, who produced official record pertaining to Survey Nos, 23, 231/1, 74, 147, 75 and 221/25, and exhibited the same as Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/5. The petitioner No,1/plaintiff appeared as PW-2 and produced copy of the extract of GLR pertaining to Survey Nos, 221/25, which was placed record of case as "Mark-A". Respondents / defendants recorded the statement of DW-1, who exhibited authority letter, issued by Deputy MEO, as DW-1/1, statement of DW-2 was also recorded, who produced original letter dated 26.01.1960 pertaining to Survey No,221/25, which is exhibited as Ex.DW-2/1.
9. Brief resume of the exhibited documents i,e, F,x.P W-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/5, Mark "A" and Ex.DW-2/1 are as under:- "Extract of GLR Ex.PW-1/1 is regarding Survey No,23 which has been shown as Thakar Dawara and is shown under the landlordship of Government of Pakistan, presently, managed by MEO, and is in occupation of the Unit.
Ex.PW-1/2 belongs to Survey No,23/1, shown as Temple and Bathing Tank, is under the landlordship' of Government of Pakistan, managed by MEO, whereas occupation has been shown of the Unit.
Ex.PW-1/3 belongs to Survey No,74, which has been shown as Dussara House, under the landlordship of Government of Pakistan and is in occupation of the Unit.
Ex.PW-1/4 is regarding to Survey No,147. Its description has been shown as Dussara House, which is the landlordship of Government of Pakistan, managed by MEO, and Unit has been shown in occupation.
Ex.PW-1/5 regarding to Survey No, 75, shown as sweepers temple, is under the landlordship of Government of Pakistan, managed by MEO and in occupation of the Unit.
Ex.DW-2/1 is the power of attorney of petitioner No, 1 /plaintiff whereas Mark-A has been shown as extracts from GLR regarding Survey No,221/25, which is shown managed by CBA, under the landlordship of Government of Pakistan, however, in column of remarks shows "leased under schedule VI for 30 years from 1st December 1922. No right of way to this plot has been leased."
Mark "A" was brought on record by petitioners/plaintiffs under the objection by respondents/defendants that the same has not been attested and certified by the competent authority nor it has been brought on record through proper official representative of the Department.
10. Now coming to Ex.DW-2/1 which is department letter No,56/489/504-A/DS/60 dated 26.01.1960, vide which land bearing Survey No,221/25 along with others was re-classified under Rule 7 of CLA Rules, 1937 from B-3 to Class-C. From the above referred documentary evidence, it transpires that disputed Survey numbers are under the landlordship of Government of Pakistan, whereas presently MEO in the case of Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/5 is looking the Management, and Ex.DW-2/1 is under the management of CBA, which fully belies the statement of the petitioners/plaintiffs.
11. Moreover, PW-2, who has categorically admitted in statement that he has no document in support of his contention, further stated that lease documents are also not available with him regarding the suit survey numbers, it has also been admitted by him that he has no proof of forcible dispossession from the suit property some five years back by CBA. So far Mark-A is concerned, the same was produced by the petitioner No,1 / plaintiff while recording his statement, it was neither attested and certified by competent authority, nor it was produced from proper custody, therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence and thus cannot be relied upon.
12. Now coming to the last contention of the learned counsel for petitioners regarding petitioners/plaintiffs' rights under Article 20 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the same has been properly dealt with by the learned appeal court in its judgment dated 19.11.2014 which is reproduced below for convenience: - "Surely, the temple in question is intact and it is managed and controlled by the Cantonment Board. It is a religious place, therefore, under Article 20, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, not only the appellants but all the members of Hindu Community have constitutional right to visit coupled with exercise their religious recitals as and when desired as per rules, regulations of the competent authority."
13. Apart. from that, both the learned counsel for 'the respondents have fully supported the above noted findings of the learned appellate court and further stated at the bar that the rights of petitioners under Article 20 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 are fully protected and the same will not be interfered with.
14. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to point out any non-reading and misreading of the evidence / material available on record of the case, nor there is any jurisdictional error or defect in the proceedings of the learned appellate court.
15. For what has been discussed above, the petitioners/plaintiffs have miserably failed in establishing their case, therefore, the present revision petition, being bereft of any merit, is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own costs.