Through this Civil Revision, judgments and decrees dated 26.04.201 1 and 13.10.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge Lahore and learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, respectively , have been assailed. By virtue of the former judgment, a suit for declaration with mandatory injunction filed by Respondent No. 1 against petitioner and other respondents has been decreed and through the latter , the same has been upheld.
2. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that in order to assail cancellation of Plot No. 177/G-4 measuring 104.65 Sq.m. situated in M.A. Johar Town, Lahore ("plot in dispute "), Respondent No. 1 filed a suit for declaration with mandatory injunction against petitioner and other respondents. It was the case of Respondent No. 1 that plot in dispute was originally exempted in favour of Respondent No. 2 who subsequently sold the same to Respondent No. 1 who, after getting the site plan approved from petitioner , constructed a house over said plot, however , subsequently he was informed that exemption in favour of Respondent No. 2 has been cancelled, therefore, being the bona fide purchaser of plot in dispute, present suit was filed. Written statements were filed by petitioner as well as Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. In its written statement, petitioner acknowledged the exemption of the plot in dispute and handing over its possession to Respondent No. 2 and also acknowledged transfer of the same in favour of Respondent No. 1 and approval of the site plan on an application filed by Resp ondent No. 1. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, as many as 07 issues were framed; evidence pro and contra was led, whereafter , through judgment and decree dated 26.04.201 1, the suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 13.10.2012, therefore, this Civil Revision.
3. In order to contest this Civil Revision , only Respondent No. 1 appeared before this Court, however , despite service, not entered appearance on behal f of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 therefore, they are proceeded against ex- parte.
4. At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner has been asked to show from the available record the letter by virtue of which exemption of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled. He has also been asked to explain that on behalf of petitioner , DW-1 appeared as a witness, as to whether the said witness was authorized by petitioner/authority to appear on its behalf. Despite his earnest effort, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any document which could answer the above queries.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. As discussed above, perusal of the written statement filed by petitioner would show that it acknowledges exemption of the plot in dispute in favour of Respondent No. 2 (Exhs.P . l&2) and also the handing over its possession to him vide letter dated 06.02.1995. It has also been acknowledged that the plot in dispute was transferred in favour of Respondent No. 1 through letter dated 16.09.1996 (Exh.P .4) subsequent to which site plan submitted by Respondent No. 1 was also approved (Exh.P .5), however , it was the case of petitioner that exemption of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled through order dated 22.07.1998. Oppose to this stance, a bare perusal of the statement made by DW-1 would show that he has set up altogether a new case which was never pleaded by petitioner in its written statement.
7. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgments reported as Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others (2014 SCMR 914), Messrs Essa Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and another v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another (2014 SCMR 922) Muhammad Ali and 7 others v. Mst. Humera Fatima and 2 others (2013 SCMR 178) and Fazal Din through L.Rs. v. Muhammad Anayat through L.Rs. (2007 SCMR 1), that mere pleadings of the parties is not per se evidence and in order to substantiate the facts narrated in the pleadings, evidence has to be produced, which should corroborate and prove the contentions, which in the case in hand the petitioner has failed to do so.
8. Keeping in view the above and placing the same in juxtaposition with the facts of present case it is clear and obvious that the stance taken by petitioner in its written statement and deposition of DW-1 are contrary and oppose to each other thus since the written statement has not be substantiated by the evidence of DW. 1 hence neither the written statement nor the statement can be looked into and relied upon. Moreover , petitioner has failed to produce any document therefrom this could be ascertained that the exemption of Respondent No. 2 was cancelled.
9. For a while if the stance taken by the petitioner in its written statement is taken to be correct since the statement made by its witness (DW-1) was beyond the scope of pleadings therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. For reference, reliance can be placed on Abdul Razaq v. Abdul Ghaf far and others (2020 SCMR 202), Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others (2019 SCMR 74), Combined investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Wali Bhai and others (PLD 2016 S.C. 730), Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others (2014 SCMR 914), Messrs Essa Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and another (2014 SCMR 922), Muhammad Wali Khan and another v. Gul Sarwar Khan and another (PLD 2010 S.C. 295), Abdul Hague and others v. Shaukat Ali and 2 others (2003 SCMR 74) and Muhammad Hussain v. Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs. and 5 others ( 2003 CLC 478 ).
10. Another aspect which further weakens the case of petitioner is that in suppor t of its written statement, DW-1 appeared who claims to be Assistant Director LDA, DLD-I, M.A. Jauhar Town, Lahore. Since he was appearing on behalf of petitioner which is an Authority , thus he had to produce some authority letter or resolution in order to represent the said authority and for making a statement on its behalf, however , there is nothing on the record wherefrom this could be established that he was authorized to appear on behalf of petitioner and make a statement.
11. It has been held by the Superior Courts that a lis initiated or a statement made on behalf of a Company/T rust/Organization without authorization-resolution is of no value and cannot be relied upon. For reference, reliance can be placed on Telecard Limited through Authorized representative v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman (2014 CLD 415), Messrs Nishat Chunian LTD through Chief Officer v. Province of Punjab through Secretary , Local Government and 2 others (2013 CLC 34), Pakistan American Commercial (PVT .) LTD. through Director v. Humayoun Latif and 7 others (PLD 2008 Karachi 540), Messrs Razo (PVT .) Limited v. Director , Karachi City Region Employees Old Age Benefit Institution and others (2005 CLD 1208 ) & Government of Pakistan v. Premier Sugar Mills and others (PLD 1991 Lahore 381) & Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (represented by 6 heirs) vs. Messrs Ghulan Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore ( PLD 1971 SC 550 ).
12. In view of the above circumstances, since (there was nothing on record wherefrom this could be established that exemption of Respondent No. 2 qua plot in dispute was cancelled through an order , thus Respondent No. 1, who is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration, could not be deprived of his title and dispossessed from the plot in dispute upon which he has raised construction after seeking approval from petitioner . Even otherwise, there is nothing on record wherefrom this could be established that prior to cancellation of exemption of Respondent No. 2, any notice was issued to Respondent No. 2 or Respondent No. 1, thus if any adverse order is passed, the same would be violative of the principle of audi alteram partem and Article 10-A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
13. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to highlight any jurisdictional defect or procedural impropriety in the impugned judgments and decrees, therefore, in view of judgments reported as Nizam-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-ul-Qamar and others (2016 SCMR 24), Iqbal Ahmed v. Managing Director Provincial Urban Development Board, N.-W .F.P. Peshawar and others (2015 SCMR 799), Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another v. Muhammad Arif (PLD 2015 SC 137), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469 ) and Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muham mad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291) no ground for interference is made out, as a sequel to which, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.