IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No,1958 of 2003 rendered on 01.09,2015. Through the impugned judgment Civil Revision filed by the Petitioners was dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the Respondents filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the Petitioners. It was contended that the Respondents were transfrees of property No.35-B Model Town, Lahore. They were in possession since 1948 and the property was duly transferred in favour of their predecessor-in-interest vide PTD No.690 dated 20.08.1962 by the Settlement Department. The Petitioners predecessor-in-interest contested the suit and raised a number of objections. The Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 05.07.1994 decreed the suit in favour of the Respondents. An appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed on 15.01.2003 and the Revision Petition met the same fate.
Hence, this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has argued that all the three fora have incorrectly appreciated the evidence and ignored the documents produced by the Petitioners. He further submits that the lower fora have relied upon a noting on the basis of which the PTD issued in favour of their predecessors-in-interest was declared as forged. He maintains that the said noting was manoeuvred, was not signed by any competent authority and was a manipulated one. He further submits that the evidence of CW-1, CW-2 and DW-1 has been wrongly read and appreciated and the rights of the petitioners have illegally been denied to them. He further maintains that the basic documents leading up to the PTD are still in the field, are valid documents and the PTD itself has neither been cancelled nor declared bogus after due inquiry, investigation and due process.
Consequently, the same could not have been declared as bogus and the suit could not have been decreed. He finally argues that the Government of Punjab and the Settlement Department were not impleaded as parties by the Respondents despite being necessary parties. The said defect being fatal to the case of the Respondents, the suit was liable to be dismissed.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners at length and gone through the record with his assistance. As far as the argument that the Government of Punjab and the Settlement Department were necessary parties to the suit is concerned, the same is without any force. The Respondents were not seeking any relief against the Government of Punjab or the Settlement Department. The Settlement Department had issued the PTD in favour of the Respondent which was nowhere challenged and was duly acted upon. The allegation against the Petitioners was that their PTD was fraudulent and bogus and they were claiming ownership of the property on the basis of such forged and bogus PTD. In order to resolve the controversy the Court itself summoned CW-1 (Patwari and record room, Incharge Settlement Department) and CW-2, Senior Clerk, Revenue Department, Board of Revenue. Both the said witnesses testified against the Petitioner and categorically stated that the PTD was not genuine and all relevant records established that it was bogus and forged. The PTD in favour of the predecessor-in-interest was also unsupported by any record. Further, there were entries and interpolations in the record which clearly showed tampering of the relevant registers and records going to the extent of replacing pages from the relevant registers and forging signatures. We further note that DW-1, Abdul Sami Qadri, Superintendent Record, Board of Revenue, a witness summoned by the Petitioners, testified against the Petitioners and supported the case of Respondents. In these circumstances, the ends of justice were duly served insofar as the learned Trial Court as well as the higher fora satisfied themselves by examining functionaries of the Board of Revenue regarding all material and relevant documents involving the Settlement Department relating to the property in question that they considered necessary for a just decision of the case.
5. In essence the case of the Petitioner is that the PTD in the favour of their predecessor-in-interest (Fakhar-ud- Din Butt) was genuine and that he paid the,price of the suit property through his compensation book. The record indicates that in the Settlement Record produced before the Court the entry in favour of Fakhar-ud-Din Butt on CSC-V Register contained the words bogus written on it. There was also a note written by the Competent Authority confirming the said fact. The note dated 25.01.1973 states that the entry appears to be bogus and on the basis of examination of the pages and signatures of the officer in question, it could safely be concluded that the entry was prima facie made subsequently which was also indicated by the fact that the page had been torn off and a fresh page had been inserted in its place which contained writing in different ink, and a different handwriting. Further a categorical statement was made that even the signatures on the PTD and related documents in favour the Petitioners were bogus and forged.
6. Perusal of the statement of CW-1 indicates that there was no PTD available on record in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners and the name of Munawar Zamani Begum (predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents) was available in the records which shows that the suit property was transferred in her favour at the relevant time. The issue between the parties concerns the transfer of property on the basis of a document. The Respondents claim title on the basis of a PTD which has duly been verified by the Settlement Department which is evident from substantial evidence, documentary as well as oral, given by departmental functionaries who had no personal interest in favour or against of either of the parties. There is no allegation of bias or collusion against any functionary of the department. On the contrary, the Settlement Department has categorically disowned the documents produced by the Petitioners. It is also strange to note that despite admitting in his cross-examination, Fakhar-ud-Din Butt, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners admitted that he was not aware when he was dispossessed, he did not initiate any proceedings before the Board of Revenue/Settlement Department and did not approach any competent forum to recovery/restoration of possession for ten long years. Despite repeated questions to seek an explanation for this silence, none was forthcoming. As far as the documents are concerned he said that his documents were genuine however, the original file in the department had been lost. It is however obvious that no effort was made by them to take up this issue with the Department or any other forum available under the law. He also admitted that he had not initiated any proceedings against the department regarding the said fact.
7. We have carefully gone through the judgments of the lower fora, considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and examined the documents attached with the petition. We find that the lower fora have correctly appreciated the evidence, applied the law and arrived at just and logical conclusion on the basis of material available on record. No mis-reading or non-reading of evidence or record has been pointed out to us.
There is no error, defect or flaw, legal, procedural or jurisdictional that may cast a shadow on the findings recorded by the lower fora. We are not persuaded by the arguments of the learned counsel for the Petitioner to interfere in the matter and do not find this case to be a fit for grant of leave to appeal.
8. For the afore-noted reasons, we find that this petition is without merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.