ABDUL HAMEED BALOCH, J. Through this common judgment I intend to dispose of the above title Civil Revision Petitions, arising out of the consolidated judgments and decrees dated 24.03.2021 and 09.12.2021, respectively passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gwadar ("trial court") and the learned District Judge, Gwadar ("the appellate court"), whereby Suit No.37 of 2019 for Declaration, Cancellation of Plot No.CC-20 Phase-II, Category-A, measuring 100 Sq Yard, situated at Town Housing Scheme Gwadar and Permanent Injunction, Correction, field by the plaintiff/petitioner No.1 was dismissed and Suit No.72 of 2019 for Decorrelation. Permanent Injunction, Possession and Recovery of Damages filed by defendant No.1 was decreed, against which appeals filed by the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 were also dismissed by the appellate court.
It is important to mention here 'that on 25.02.2022 these civil revision petitions were admitted for regular hearing. Since the matter pertains to Circuit Bench Turbat and on 13.05.2022 learned counsel for the respondent was heard while learned counsel for petitioner requested for adjournment with further request to transfer the case to the principal seat at Quetta. The request of learned counsel for the petitioner was accepted and the case was transferred to the principal seat.
On 27.05.2022 the counsel for petitioner was absent, whereas on 10.06.2022 and 24.06.2022 counsel for the petitioner requested for adjournment, therefore as per request of learned counsel for petitioner the matter was fixed for 01.07.2022 but on the said date again request for adjournment was made, which was declined. In such circumstances I have been left with no other option but to decide both the above petitions on the basis of available record.
2. Brief facts leading to file the above titled petitions are that the plaintiffs/petitioners filed Suit No.37 of 2019 for Declaration, Cancellation of Plot No.CC-20 Phase-II, Category-A, measuring 100 Sq Yard, situated at Town Housing Scheme Gwadar and Permanent Injunction, Correction of the same in the name of Plaintiff before Senior Civil Judge, Gwadar with the following prayers: To declare that plaintiff is the real owner and actual possessor of the suit Plot No. CC-20, Phase II, measuring 1000 Sq yards, situated at New Town Housing Scheme, Gwadar, which is unlawfully issued [sic] to the name of defendant No.1 by the injustice support of defendant No.2 on 24.03.2011. To direct defendant No.2 to cancel and correct the allotment/transfer certificate of suit Plot No. CC-20, Phase II measuring 1000 Sq yards, situated at New Town Housing Scheme Gwadar and transfer/enter it to the name of plaintiff To permanently restrain the defendants not to interfere into the land of plaintiff. Any other relief which may deem fit and proper according to the circumstances of the case may also be awarded along with the cost of the suit in the interest of justice, fair play and equity.
3. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 filed separate written statement repudiated the contention of the plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Similarly, plaintiff/respondent No.1 filed Suit No.72 of 2019 for Decorrelation, Permanent Injunction, Possession and Recovery of Damages prayed as under: A. To hold and declare that plaintiff is lawful owner of the property viz Plot No. CC-20, Phase II measuring 1000 Sq yards, situated at New Town Housing Scheme Gwadar.
B. To direct defendants Nos.1 to 4, its employees, its attorney or anybody acting on its behalf to put plaintiff into possession of the plot property viz No. CC-20, Phase II measuring 1000 Sq yards, situated at New Town Housing Scheme Gwadar failing which SHO PS Gwadar be directed to do the needful.
C. This hon`ble court is further prayed to pass a decree against defendant herein for payment of an amount of Rs. 10 million as damages to the plaintiff.
D. Cost of litigation and any other relief which this hon'ble court deems fit, in the circumstances is also solicited.
5. The private defendant filed written statement repudiated the contention of the plaintiffs and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The parties of both the suits led their evidence and on conclusion the learned trial court consolidated both the suits and passed a consolidated judgment and decree dated 24.03.2021, whereby the Suit No.37 of 2012 was dismissed while the Suit No.72 of 2019 was decreed. Being aggrieved the plaintiff in Suit No.37 of 2019 and the defendants in Suit No.72 of 2019 preferred separate appeals bearing Nos. 14/2021 and 15 of 2021 before the District Judge, Gwadar (appellate Court). The learned appellate court vide consolidated judgment dated 09th December, 2021 dismissed both the appeals. Hence these civil revision petitions.
6. Heard. Perused the record. The perusal of record transpires that the petitioner No.1 filed Suit No.37 of 2019 for Cancellation of Plot No.CC-20, Phase-II, Category-A, measuring 1000 sq-yard on the ground that the suit land is in possession of plaintiff since long. He has constructed +- the boundary wall and room over the plot, residing in it. The record transpires that the plot in question was allotted to defendant/respondent No.1 by defendant No.2 and issued allotment certificate on 24.03.2011. The respondent No.1 deposited the instalment in Muslim Commercial Bank Gwadar New Town Housing Scheme. The director Techno Consult and Management Service issued verification certificate in favour of respondent No.1 (Muhammad Ibrahim) on 14.02.2011. The Gwadar Development Authority on 20.10.2011 issued NOC in favour of respondent for construction of boundary wall. The respondent No.1 filed application to Project Director New Town Housing Scheme Gwadar for removal illegal occupation but despite efforts the illegal occupation has not been removed.
7. The record further reveals that the Government of Balochistan in pursuance of notification of Board of Revenue No.168-14/85. Rev December 1985 and No.210-8/90, rev dated 22nd January 1992 transferred 15 acres land to New Town Housing Scheme Gwadar, subsequently the said land was transferred in the name of Project Director New Town Scheme Gwadar in the revenue record. The record transpires that the plaintiff claimed ownership through possession without valid documents.
The witnesses admitted that the land has been settled one. The plaintiff failed to produce any documents to substantiate his contention. Mere possession cannot bestow the title to plaintiff. The possession cannot be bestow title against the lawful owner. Mere possession would not create title in favour of a person who has illegal possession. Even temporary or permissive possession/occupation of a property would not bestow its possessor/occupant with any right. In Saddar-ud-Din case (2021 SCMR 642) it was held that "Suffice it to be observe that mere prolong possession coupled with title documents by itself does not establish the claim of ownership."
8. Under Article 117 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 whoever desires any court to give judgment/decision as to any legal right or liability in the existence of fact which he assert must prove the same. As per above referred provision the heavy burden is on shoulder of plaintiff to prove his case through cogent and reliable evidence. It is well settled principle of law that party approaching the court for grant of relief would have to discharge the burden on the strength of his/their own evidence and could not avail any benefit of any weakness in the case of opposite party. Reliance is placed on the case of Administrator Municipal Corporation Peshawar v.
Taimoor Hussain Amin PLD 2020 SC 249, whereby it has been observed as under: "12. The burden of proof lay on the Plaintiffs (Articles 117, 118 and 119 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984) to prove, firstly, that the Property was bought by them, secondly, that they had bought it from the Sellers and, thirdly, that the Sellers were its owners, however, the Plaintiffs did not establish any of this. The Plaintiffs simply relied on sale mutation No. 8482, however, this mutation was denied by the Corporation therefore the Plaintiffs, the beneficiary of the purported sale, had to establish the original sale transaction; a well established principle and referred to in a number precedents of this Court, some of these cases (prior to the judgment of the judgment dated 21st April 2011 of the learned Civil Judge) are: Muhammad Akram v. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688), Fida Muhammad v. Murid Sakiha (2004 SCMR 1043), Muhammad Hussain v. Wahid Bakhsh (2004 SCMR 1137), Arshad Khan v. Resham Jan (2005 SCMR 1859), Muhammad Afzal v.
Matloob Hussain (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 84) and Abdul Rasheed v. Manzoor Ahmad (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 287); all these precedents were disregarded by the learned Civil Judge."
9. Under Order XLI, Rule 24, C.P.C. where the, evidence on record is sufficient for deciding the appeal, the appellate court may after resetting the issue decide the appeal instead of remand the case. It has been repeatedly observed by the superior court that the courts should not resort for making unnecessary remand because remand consuming reasonable time of court involves the parties into unnecessary litigation and wastage of public expense. Reliance is placed on the case of Fateh Ali v. Pir Muhammad 1975 SCMR 221, whereby it has been observed as under: "4. There is no substance in these contentions. The learned Judge of the High Court was under no obligation to make an order of remand and was fully competent to dispose of the issues left undetemined by the first Appellate Court. Learned counsel could not place before us any statutory provision or a judicial authority to the contrary effect. As regards the second point, on a careful reading of the statutory provision contained in para. 25(4) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64, learned counsel had to concede that on the available evidence the requisite conditions of its application to the case of the respondents were not satisfied."
Reliance may also be placed on the case of Chairman WAPDA v. Gulab Khan 1996 SCMR 230 and on the case of Arshad Amin v. Swiss Bakery 1993 SCMR 216.
10. The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. The High Court can interfere in the finding of the courts below only if shown the findings of courts below are based on misreading, non-reading of evidence or patently observed. In revisional jurisdiction the High Court cannot reappraised the evidence. Reliance is placed on the case of Roazi Khan v. Nasir 1997 SCMR 1849, whereby it has been held as under: Another aspect which needs to be mentioned here relates to scope of revisional Jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. In the instant case there is concurrent finding; of facts of two Courts below wherein all aspects have been appropriately dealt with.
Evidently the scope of revisional jurisdiction is curative and narrower, which can be appropriately invoked where subordinate forums have committed jurisdictional error or misread the evidence or ignored material aspects affecting very root of the case or suggest perversity. It may be seen that scope and authority exercisable by revisional forums has been elaborately dealt with in case of Haji Muhammad Din v. Muhammad Abdullah (PLD 1994 SC 291). Relevant observations are reproduced below: "It is well-settled law that a concurrent finding by two Courts below cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second Civil Appeal much less in 'exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C., unless the Courts below while recording the finding of fact have either misread the evidence or have ignored any material piece of evidence on record or the finding of fact recorded by the two Courts below is perverse. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact in revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. is still narrower. The High Court to exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. can only interfere with the orders of tile subordinate. Courts on the grounds, that the Court below has assumed jurisdiction which did not vest in it, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law or that the Court below has acted with material irregularity effecting its jurisdiction in the case (see Umar Dad Khan v. Tilla Muhammad Khan, PLD 1970 SC 288), Muhammad Bakhsh v. Muhammad Ali, 1984 SCMR 504, Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan PLD 1986 SC 89 and Abdul Hameed v. Ghulam Muhammad 1987 SCMR 1005). Under this jurisdiction the High Court only corrects the jurisdictional errors of subordinate Court the fact that the High Court while reappraising the evidence on record reached a conclusion different from those arrived at by the two Courts below, could never be a ground justifying interference with a finding of fact much less a concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below on the basis of evidence produced before them, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C."
In view of above, both the petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed.