FAZAL SUBHAN, J. This civil revision petition filed under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is directed against judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge-I, Battagram dated: 13.05.2019, whereby suit of plaintiffs/respondent was decreed and that of learned District Judge, Battagram dated: 22.10.2010 vide which, Appeal No. 23/13 of 2009 filed by petitioners was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts emanating from the record are that the present respondents brought a suit No. 30/1 of the year 2006, against the present petitioners for declaration, permanent injunction and possession to the effect that they are owners in possession of 3/4th share in half property of khasra Nos. 367-368, 188/365, measuring 246 kanal 16 maths, situated at Mouza Jamaira (hereinafter called the suit property) whereas, present petitioners are owners of 4th share and therefore, entries of 2/4th share in favor of present petitioners is wrong, illegal and is the result of fraud and is liable to correction.
3. After institution of suit, the present petitioners were summoned who after attendance filed their written statement and after framing of issues both the parties availed the opportunity producing their evidence. On the close of trial, suit of the respondents was decreed as per prayer Alif on 13.05.2009. The petitioners challenged the said judgment and decree through Appeal No. 28/13 of 2009 but it was dismissed on 22.10.2010, which is now impugned through this civil revision petition.
4. Arguments of counsel for the parties heard and record perused.
5. From the record it is clear that Jehanzeb Patwari Halqa brought revenue record of the suit property, consisting of Misl-e-Haqiat for the jumabandi from 1981-82 to 2001-2002 Ex PW-1 / 1 to Ex PW-1 /7 and khasra gardawari from Rabi 1978 to Rabi 2008 Ex PW-1/8. From Misl-e-Haqayat of the year 1976-77, it is clear that Ajoon son of Muhammad Gul is recorded as owner of half share in the entire suit property, while in the remaining half share Kashmir son of Said Rehman 1/4th and Gul Dad, Baghdar sons of Nawab, caste Gujjar 3/4th share have been recorded but in the subsequent jamabandis, Kashmir son of Said Rehman is recorded as owner of 4th share and Gul Dad, Baghdad son of Nawab fourth share. Record further shows that through correction mutation, the name of Kashmir son of Said Rehman was corrected to Ahmed Gul son of Said Rehman. The above referred record clearly shows variation in the share of respondents from 3/4th to fourth inspite of the fact that there is neither any transaction or alienation from them, nor said variations were made through Court decree. In this way the respondents have convincingly discharged the onus of proving wrong entries in the revenue record. It is settled law that presumption of correctness is attached to the very first entry in the revenue record incorporated through settlement. Though petitioners in their written Statement have not specially taken any plea, however, they have contended that suit was filed to counter partition petition filed by them, however, during their evidence they took the ground of a Sharai Jirga held between the parties and arrived through one Moulvi Abdul Manan. In their evidence, the petitioners gave up the earlier stance and contended to have purchased the land and that private partition has already been effected. The trial Court as well as the appellate, Court have considered effectively all factual controversies and have come to the conclusion that the said decision arrived between the parties through Moulvi Abdul Manan has no effects on the rights of the parties. The petitioners through their evidence have pleaded entirely different case, hence, as such, the said evidence beyond pleadings cannot be entertained. In case of Mst. Murad Begum and others v. Muhammad Rafiq and others reported in PLD 1974 SC 322, the August Supreme Court has held that: "Party not permitted to raise new ground of attack or defence by departing from its previous pleadings.
It is well settled that a party cannot be permitted to raise an altogether new ground of attack or defence, by departing from its previous pleadings, especially when the opposite -party had no opportunity to adduce evidence in this behalf or to otherwise have an opportunity of meeting the plea during the course of the trial."
6. Similarly, August Supreme Court in the case of Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others reported in 2007 SCMR 729, also held that: Some of the ground i.e (1) respondents/plaintiffs are legal heirs of Mst. Bani or not, (ii) validation of mutation of sale, (iii) limitation and (iv) non-implementation of necessary parties, raised before us are exactly the same which were raised before the learned High Court in the impugned judgment vide paragraphs Nos 7 to 10. The remaining grounds which were contended before us by the learned counsel for petitioners were not agitated before the learned High Court as is evident from para.3 of the impugned judgment. It is settled law that parties are bound by their pleadings as law laid down by this Court in Mst. Murad Begum's case, PLD 1974 SC 322.
7. From the record it is clear that the respondents were owners of 3/4th share of half of the suit property and both the Courts below have rightly declared them to be entitled to their share originally recorded in the Misl-e-Haqiat, hence, both the impugned judgments do not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error, hence, are maintained and thus civil revision petition, being meritless, stands dismissed.