' This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25-4-1984 passed by Qazi Mastung in Suit No, 35 Diwani of 1982 whereby the suit filed by the respondents herein under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act has been decreed and the petitioners have been directed to hand over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiff/respondent.
2,, The plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit on 4-4-1982 before the Assistant Commissioner, Kalat alleging therein that the land, the details whereof are given in para. 1 of the plaint had been in their possession and they had been cultivating the same as tenant but a few days back it has been taken over by the defendants/petitioners with a view to start cultivation thereon. It was prayed that since they had been dispossessed otherwise than in accordance with law possession be restored to them. The petitioners in their written statement denied the above assertions and took the stand they were in occupation of the land on the basis of their own rights.
3. The learned Assistant Commissioner framed the following issues and referred the suit for disposal to Qazi Sarwan
(1) Whether the suit is competent against the defendants ?
(2) Whether the suit is not barred by time ?
(3) If the issue No, 1 is decided in the affirmative what should the relief be ? The learned Qazi on receipt of the file added the following issues :- (i)Whether the application filed by the plaintiff is competent ?
(ii) Whether the possession of the property was with the defendant prior to the filing of the suit?
(iii) Whether any decision was arrived at between the parties and defendants had interfered in the property prior to the decision ?
(iv) Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and the property in dispute belongs to Zikriazai ?
' On the basis of the evidence produced by the parties the Qazi came to the findings that the land in dispute had been in possession of the plaintiff and had been dispossessed by the defendants as alleged by the plaintiffs in their suit. The issue No, 4 was found against the defendants. Accordingly a decree as provided under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was passed in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants/petitioners were ordered to hand over the possession to the plaintiffs.
5. Since no appeal is provided under section 9 of the above said Act this revision has been filed and the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged the following grounds before me : -
(a) That the description of the property in suit has not been given in the suit.
(b) That no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the defendants.
(c) That a person named "Bajar" was though examined by Qazi but his statement is not found on record. This witness was examined on behalf of the defendants.
(d) The statement of plaintiff No, 2 was only recorded and the other plaintiffs did not appear in the witness-box.
(e) The plaintiffs never alleged in their suit that they had been dispossessed without their consent or forcibly.
6. On the perusal of the record produced by the petitioners themselves in this Court, it is found that the property has been fairly described and not only Khewat numbers are mentioned but the boundaries too have been described. No complaint was made before the trial Court that they wanted to put any question to the witnesses produced by the plaintiffs and they have been denied the opportunity. At least these allegations are not supported by affidavit before me. The affidavit annexed with the revision petition only states that the contents of petition are correct. A This statement certainly does not conform to the requirement of law. One of the petitioners Muhammad Khan has been made to thumb mark the affidavit drafted in English language to which the defendant is certainly ignorant of what facts have been sworn on personal knowledge or information received is also not specified. The contents were not even sworn before the Commissioner for taking affidavit. The endorsement in this behalf reads :- "The above-named deponent has been identified to me by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Ahmed, Advocate, who is personally known to, me this 4th day of July, 1984."
(Sd.)
Commissioner for taking Affidavit."
' The endorsement of the Commissioner is therefore of no avail and ther so-called affidavit is useless.
' The assertion of the learned counsel for the petitioners about the absence of the statement on record of witness Bijar is found incorrect as the counsel for plaintiffs/respondents herein produced in Court the certified copy of the said statement. The same has been attached to the record of B the case. The statement of witness was read over by the counsel for the petitioner and nothing could be pointed out by him which may be of any help to the case put up by the petitioners in their written statements. It is unfortunate that the counsel for the petitioners did not exercise due vigilance as was required of him. I have gone through the record produced in the case before me and found that the findings arrived at by the learned Qazi are justified. Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act provides a summary procedure for grant of relief to persons dispossessed from immoveable property without their consent. The purpose is to discourage dispossession. The plaintiffs have established through the persons examined on their behalf C that they had been in actual physical possession of the suit land and they were dispossessed within the period of six months prior to the institution of the suit.
' The witnesses produced by the petitioners before the Qazi expressed their ignorance on the material points. The learned Qazi concluded his findings in these words :- {{URDU TEXT}} The evidence does exist on record on which the findings of the lower-, Court could be reasonably based. The Courts in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction have seldom interfered with such findings. The Qazi was possessed of jurisdiction and has not violated any law of procedure or acted illegally in the exercise of jurisdiction. The wrong appraisal of evidence does not amount to illegal or materially irregular exercise of jurisdiction.
' For the above reasons I find no merits in the revision which is accordable but with no order as to costs.