CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J. Through this civil revision, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the judgment and decree dated 25.10.2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore who accepted the appeal of the respondents, set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Lahore and decreed the suit filed by the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed suit for declaration against the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 6/defendants and contended that they purchased twa adjacent plots measuring 05 Marla each bearing Nos.128 and 129, Block-G, Muhammad Ali Johar Town, Lahore. The respondent No. 1/plaintiff No.1. purchased Plot No.128 from respondent No.3/Afzaal Ahmad/defendant No.2 and respondent No.2/plaintiff No.2 purchased plot from respondent No.4/defendant No.3/Zafar-ul-Mohsin. Agreements to sell were written. Later on application was filed before petitioner/L.D.A for transfer of plots in favour of the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs. Subsequently, Plot Nos.128 and 129 were transferred in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs respectively on the same date. The respondents Nos.3 and 4/defendants had purchased plots in question from respondent No.5/Mst. Razia Fatima/defendant No.4 through registered sale deeds. On 11.02.2000, petitioner/L.D.A served notice to the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs for the cancellation of allotment of plots to the respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs contended that the notice is against the record and liable to be set aside being illegal and unlawful. Razia Fatima/defendant No.4 filed written statement and stated that some person in collusion of L.D.A staff prepared forged allotment in her name and then on the basis of fake general power of attorney, the land was transferred from her name to the respondents/defendants. Razia filed application before the L.D.A and Anti-corruption Establishment and prayed for cancellation of allotment as well general power of attorney. The respondents/defendants Nos.2 and 3 filed consenting written statement. The L.D.A./petitioner/defendant No.1 filed contesting written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed issues, recorded pro and contra evidence of the parties and finally dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011. The respondents filed an appeal which was also allowed by the appellate Court vide judgment and decree dated 25.10.2017 and by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 08.03.2011 passed by the learned trial Court the suit of the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs was decreed. Hence, this civil revision.
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. The core controversy involved in this case revolves around issue No.1 which is reproduced as under: "Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for declaration as prayed for? OPP"
Respondents/plaintiffs produced Akhtar Ali, Assistant Director L.D.A. (P.W.1) who produced the record of plots of 128, 129 measuring 05 Marla each. That these plots were transferred in favour of Farah Inam on 23.07.2008, however, after inquiry fraud was proved upon which plots were cancelled. Inayat-ur-Rehman (P.W.2), special attorney of the respondents/plaintiffs, during cross- examination deposed that he did not know that whether Riaz Fatima recorded any statement before L.D.A; that he did not know whether sale deeds and general power of attorney are forged documents. The respondents/plaintiffs also produced Inam-ur-Rehman (P.W.3).
5. Perusal of statement of Akhtar Ali, Assistant Director, L.D.A (P.W.1) categorically stated that Riaz Fatima recorded statement that she neither appointed general power of attorney and executed sale deed and these documents are forged documents. Inayat-ur-Rehman (P.W.2) in his cross- examination did not deny that the sale deed and power of attorney are forged documents rather he deposed that he did not know anything about these documents. He also deposed that he did not know regarding the statement recorded by Riaz Fatima before L.D.A.
6. Further, Riaz Fatima, the alleged owner of the suit plots, filed application to the L.D.A for exemption of her property measuring 01 Kanal 14 Marlas bearing Khasra No.12198 Moza Naiz Baig on 13.11.1984 upon which plot Nos.192 and 193 were allotted to her. She categorically stated that she did not execute any general power of attorney as such the general power of attorney as well as sale deeds based on that general power of attorney are forged documents and based A on fraud and misrepresentation. The respondents/plaintiffs could not rebut the stance of Mst. Riaz Fatima through any concrete, solid and trustworthy oral as well as documentary evidence. It is thus proved on record that fraud was committed in preparing the files of the plots in question and it is settled law that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings and any edifice so raised on the basis of such fraudulent transaction, that stand automatically dismantled and any ill-gotten gain achieved by fraudster cannot be validated under any norms of laws. Reliance in this regard is placed on cases cited as Nawab Syed Raunar Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others PLD 1973 SC 236), Lahore Development Authority v. Firdous Steel Mills (Pvt.) Limited (2010 SCMR 1097) and Mst. Nazeeran and others v. Ali Bux and others (2024 SCMR 1271).
7. The appellate Court has accepted the appeal of the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs on the sole ground that they are bona fide purchasers. As Riaz Fatima, the alleged owner of the suit plots, has denied the execution of any general power of attorney. The basic document of alleged general power of attorney was required to be proved by producing the alleged attorney, the scribe, witnesses as well as Sub-Registrar who registered the said document but all these witnesses were not produced by the respondents/plaintiffs. Under Article 17 read with Article 79 of the Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, it is duty of the beneficiary, respondents/plaintiffs to prove the alleged general power of attorney by producing both the marginal witnesses whereas in this case admittedly no marginal witness of the alleged general power of attorney was produced by the respondents/plaintiffs in evidence without any reason which blatant non-compliance of the above mandatory provision of law leads to conveniently hold that the respondents/plaintiffs have failed to prove the execution of the alleged general power of attorney as per law. Reliance is placed on Mst. Rasheeda Begum and others v. Muhammad Yousaf and others (2002 SCMR 1089), Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through LRs and others (PLD 2011 SC 241) and Farzand Ali and another v. Khuda Bakhsh and others (PLD 2015 SC 187). Thus, non-production of such material witnesses is amounted to withholding of the best evidence and it would be legally presumed that had the said witnesses produced in the evidence, they would have deposed unfavourable against the respondents/plaintiffs as such pre-sumption under Article 129 (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 clearly operates against the respondents/plaintiffs. Reliance is placed on the case of Sughran Bibi v. Mst. Aziz Begum and 4 others (1996 SCMR 137) and Jehangir v. Mst. Shams Suhana and others (2022 SCMR 309). Thus, the respondents/plaintiffs could not prove the execution of alleged general power of attorney as such the subsequent transactions (sale deed etc.) made on the basis of the said general power of attorney would collapse and would have no sanctity in the eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the case of Rehmatullah and others v. Saleh Khan and others (2007 SCMR 729) and in absence of any solid foundation, the superstructure so built shall automatically crumble down. This fact has rightly been discussed and relied by the trial Court whereas the appellant Court has ignored the same while rendering the impugned judgment. As it has already been decided by the competent Court that respondents Nos.3 and 4 had no valid title/claim over the suit property, as such the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs/subsequent purchasers have to soar and sink with their vendor/transferor and they are debarred to claim any better title.
Reliance can be placed on the cases titled as Muhammad Yamin and others v. Settlement Commissioner and others (1976 SCMR 489), Bashir Ahmad and others v. Additional Commissioner with powers of Settlement Commissioner (L) and others (1983 SCMR 1199), Talib Hussain and others v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (2003 SCMR 549), Province of the Punjab through Collector, Sheikhupura and others v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah and others (2017 SCMR 172) and Abdul Hamid v. M.B.R. and others (1994 CLC 1160).
8. The respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have failed to prove the assertions made in the plaint through any unimpeachable and trustworthy evidence as such the findings of appellate Court being against the record G are hereby reversed and the issue No.1 is decided against the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff.
9. As regard the objection of learned counsel for the respondents that instant civil revision is time barred is concerned, suffice it to say that under Article 203 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with Section 115, C.P.C, this Court being a supervisory and revisional Court has suo more jurisdiction to look into the matter where any illegality has been committed by the Courts below and to pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice as it thinks fit even if the revision petition has been filed beyond the prescribed limitation, as settled by the Hon'ble Large Bench of the August Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case cited as Hafeez Ahmad and others v.
Civil Judge, Lahore and others (PLD 2012 SC 400), wherein it is held as under:- "17. Now question arises whether suo motu jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code could be exercised by the High Court or the District Court in a case where a revision petition has been filed after the period of limitation prescribed therefor. The answer to this question depends on the discretion of the Court because exercise of revisional jurisdiction in any form is discretionary. Such Court may exercise suo motu jurisdiction if the conditions for its exercise are satisfied. It is never robbed of its suo motu jurisdiction simply because the petition invoking such jurisdiction is filed beyond the period prescribed therefor. Such petition, could be treated as an information even if it suffers from procedural lapses or loopholes. Revisional jurisdiction is pre-eminently corrective and supervisory, therefore, there is absolutely no harm if the Court seized of -a revision petition, exercises its suo motu jurisdiction to correct the errors of the jurisdiction committed by a subordinate Court. This is what can be gathered from the language used in Section 115 of the Code and this is what was intended by the legislature, legislating it. If this jurisdiction is allowed to go into the spiral of technicalities and fetters of limitation, the purpose behind conferring it on the Court shall not only be defeated but the words providing therefor, would be reduced to dead letters. It is too known to be reiterated that the proper place of procedure is to provide stepping stones and not stumbling blocks in the way of administration of justice. Since the proceedings before a revisional Court is a proceeding between the Court and Court, for ensuring strict adherence to law and safe administration of justice, exercise of suo motu jurisdiction may not be conveniently avoided or overlooked altogether. The Court exercising such, jurisdiction would fail in its duty if it finds an illegality or material irregularity in the judgment of a subordinate Court and yet dismisses it on technical grounds."
In view of above dictum (supra) laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, this Court has suo motu jurisdiction to look into the where found any illegality even if the revision petition has been filed beyond the prescribed limitation, as such, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is hereby repelled.
10. From the above, it is established that the appellate Court did not even consider or discuss any oral as well as documentary evidence and by committing misreading and non-reading of record, passed the impugned judgment and decree which suffers from patent illegality and irregularity as such the same is liable to be set-aside. Reliance is placed on the case of Nazim-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar and others (2016 SCMR 24).
11. Resultantly, this civil revision is allowed, the judgment and decree dated' 25.10.2017, passed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside, the judgment and decree gated 08.03.2011, passed by the trial Court is upheld and the suit filed by the respondents Nos.1 and 2/plaintiff is dismissed. No order as to costs. The petitioner/L.D.A is hereby directed to appoint a responsible officer to inquire into the matter in question as well as other similar matters that why the mutation(s) of the Muhammad Ali Johar Town, Lahore have not yet been incorporated after the award and also probe regarding the preparation of bogus property files. The inquiry officer shall fix the responsibility against the delinquent officers/officials whereafter the petitioner shall take action and shall submit complete report through Deputy Registrar. (Judicial/Civil) of this Court who shall place the same before this Court on administrative side.