This petition has questioned the judgment and decree dated 17th March, 1975 whereby the learned District Judge, Faisalabad set aside the decree of the trial Court dated 16th October, 1972 and dismissed the suit of the petitioner for declaration and perpetual injunction.
2. The dispute relates to a D type quarter which was once allotted to one Karim Khan father of respondents 6 and 7. It was stated by the peti--tioner that he occupied it in the year 1961 under agreement dated 28th June, 1961 and thereafter he paid seven instalments and also incurred an expenditure of Rs.5,000. The petitioner gave a long history of bow Karim Khan had lost interest in the property in dispute and later started claiming it with the help of one Raja Sultan Ahmad who was the bitter enemy of the petitioner. He stated that the quarter in dispute was again allotted to Karim Khan on, 18th May, 1963 without notice to him, that was why he could not make an appeal.
However, he was said to have filed appeals against his dispossession but with no success. The petitioner, therefore, filed the suit challenging the notice and his. Dispossession with a declaration that he was in occupation of the property in his own right and was entitled to its allotment by virtue of the policy letters dated 10th November, 1964 and 21st July, 1965. Perpetual injunction was also sought to restrain the authorities from allotting the quarter to respondents -6 and 7 and disturbing the petitioner's possession.
3. The suit was contested by the defendants and the trial Court decreed the suit mainly on the basis of the policy of the Government contained in Exh P. 13 relating to the allotments of the quarters and their regularisation in favour of unauthorised occupants. It was held that vari--ous allotments were regularised in the similar circumstances. Therefore, the Government was not competent to pick and choose according to the whim and caprice of the officers holding the authority. The orders refusing the petitioner his right to be considered for allotment were thus held unjustified. The Province and its concerned authorities went in appeal before the learned District Judge, who set aside the decree and dismissed the suit of the petitioner. He held that petitioner was trespasser but not in similar occupation of the quarter as those in whose favour the regula-- rization was made. He observed that the quarter was given to Karim Khan deceased anal the petitioner pushed him aside to acquire his wrongful possession and there was no reason why it should not have been given back to him.
4. It was not necessary for the appellate Court to have referred to each and every document in its judgment. An effective conclusion drawn on the basis of one set of documents without mentioning the other cannot be said to be vitiated by misreading of evidence. It comes on record that in some cases Authority regularised the unauthorised occupation as is evident from the order dated 16th August, 1966 (Exh. P. 1), the order dated 30th April, 1964 (Exh. P. 2) and order dated 20th January, 1966 (Exh. P. 3), but this appears to have been done under the authority given by the decision taken in the meeting held on 19th April, 1963, the copy of the extract of which is on file as Exh. P. 4.
According to item 13 allotments to unauthorised occupants was permitted only in cases which were recommended by the Sub-Committee. According to item No. 5 of the meeting held on 13th January, 1964 only those occupants were considered eligible for regularisation whose names were borne in the Survey Register of 1962. It has not been shown by the petitioner that his case was ever recommended by the Sub-Committee or that his name was borne in the Survey Register of 1962 maintained in this respect. It comes in evidence that the quarter in dispute was again allotted to Karim Khan on 18 May, 1963 and it has not been made out that the petitioner had after the decision was taken in the meeting on 19th April, 1963 ever made an application for allotment or for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. He, as he himself stated, came in possession on account of an alleged agreement of sale dated 28th June, 1961 which was never placed on record.
It is undisputed that Karim Khan, having not yet become the owner of the quarter was not authorised to pass on any title to the petitioner and in that respect the learned District Judge, was justified in remarking that the petitioner had illegally pushed Karim Khan aside to acquire the wrongful possession of the quarter in dispute, and for that reason his case was altogether different, because he was not in simlar unauthorised occupation. The general instructions of Govern--ment (Exh. P. 12) and (Exh, P. 13) introduced on 10th November, 1964 and 21st July, 1965 respectively permit the wrongful occupation of the quarters to be regularised, but since the quarter in dispute had by then been re-allotted to Karim Khan, it was not available for being regularized in the petitioner's favour.
5. One application (Exh. P. 11) appears to have been addressed by the petitioner on 10th September, 1962 but that being made before the enforcement of the General Policy could not be entertained as of right, and was thus rightly rejected. The petitioner did not in that case get any cause of action against its rejection. In the circumstances the learned District Judge was right in holding that there was nothing wrong with the impugned orders and the petitioner was not entitled to allotment of the quarter in dispute.
6. The suit was filed against the Government Authorities and Muhammad Rashid and Muhammad Saleem respondents 6 and 7 were also made parties an defendant, but on the suit being decreed the Govern--ment Authorities aggrieved by the decree passed against them, filed an appeal before the learned District Judge but did not implead respond--ents 6 and 7. It has been argued that the decree having been passed against all the respondents, had become final against respondents 6 and 7 who should have also filed the appeal but did not do so. The suit as it stood was directed to challenge the orders passed by respondents 1 to 5 respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were not directly involved in that dispute. Res--pondents 1 to 5 could in appeal avoid the decree passed against them and get their orders validated even without impleading respondents 6 and 7. Cth During appeal no objection to non-joinder or mis-joinder of parties was raised by the petitioner, it cannot at this stage be said that the appeal a was in any. Manner defective or that any decree stands final against res--pondents 6 and 7.
For the foregoing reasons there is no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.