1. ' This revision application is filed against the order of the Third Additional District Judge, Sukkur confirming the judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge, Ghotki in suit instituted by respondents for possession and mesne profits and dismissing the appeal of appellant.
2. ' The learned counsel for the applicants has raised following contentions before me. It is firstly contended by Mr. Shaikh Abdul Rehman that the first appellate Court, acted illegally in proceeding with the appeal without preparation of paper-book although the cost of paper-book was deposited by the applicants. The learned counsel in this behalf relied on rules 199 to 201 of Sind Civil Courts Rules. It is next contended by the learned counsel that there was no evidence on record before the Courts below to come to the conclusion that the pespondents are the owners of the land in dispute. The last contention of the learned counsel is that although there was a prayer in the suit for, possession of the land only to the extent of 13 Ghuntas but his clients were dispossessed from an area of 30 Ghuntas and that too without filing of any formal execution application by the respondents. None of the above contentions are sufficient for admission of revision petition.
3. 'No doubt in a first civil appeal which arises from the decree in a Civil Suit the Court has the discretion for ordering preparation of paper-book upon admission of appeal to regular hearing but there is nothing in the rules relied by the learned counsel to show that A preparation of such paper-book is a must or mandatory. There is also nothing in these rules to indicate that non- compliance of these rules has the effect of rendering the decision given by the Court on merit as illegal or void. The learned counsel contends that rule 201 provides that for non-payment of costs of preparation of paper-book by the appellant the Court can dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution and therefore, it follows that compliance of above rules where costs has been paid by the appellant is mandatory. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. The prepration of paper-book in first civil appeal is discretionary with the Court as is evident from Rules 198 ibid and mere fact that the appellant has deposited the cost of preparation of B paper-book in pursuance of the order of Court cannot change the nature or character of those rules. The appellate Court, therefore, in appropriate cases may dispense with the preparation of paper-book in spite of deposit of paper-book charges by the appellant and one of the relevant consideration in dispensing with the preparation of paper-book may be the delay in preparation of paper-book. I am also of the view that the rules regarding preparation of paper-book are only, rules of convenience and they are neither mandatory nor directory in nature. No doubt the Court is possessed of the power to dismiss an appeal under rule 201 ibid for non-prosecution if the appellant failed to deposit the C costs of paper-book ordered by it but the Court is not bound to pass the dismissal order in every case and may in its discretion in appropriate cases dispense with the preparation of paper-book or order for proceeding with the case without a paper-book. It is also clear that where the Court decides the appeal on merit without complying the provisions of rules 198 to 201 its decision is not rendered defective or illegal for such non-compliance. The next contention of the learned counsel is the there is no evidence on record to show that the respondent had any title in respect of the land in suit; Issue No.1 framed by the trial Court related to the title of the respondent. While discussing this issue the trial Court has referred to the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the respondents by the owners besides subsequent mutation of the land in the name of respondent on the basis of statement of legal representatives of the deceased- vendor. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the registered sale-deed was treated as void by the Collector and, therefore, it could not be relied upon and in so far the mutation on the basis of the statements of the. Legal representatives of vendor is concerned it was fraudulently made. Both these contentions were repelled by the Courts below and the reasons given by them are quite cogent and call for no interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The next submission of the learned counsel is that he was in possession of an area which is over 13 Ghuntas while the suit related only for possession of 13 Ghuntas. It is accordingly contended that the trial Court while decreeing (sic) it directed handing over possession of the suit land in excess of the area which was subject-matter of the suit. On issues Nos. 9 and 10 framed in the suit the trial Court came to the conclusion that the respondent was forcibly dispossessed by the applicant and since the property was in possession of the receiver, who was appointed during the course of the proceedings, it directed the receiver to hand over possession of the property to the respondents upon passing of a decree for possession in his favour. No exception, therefore, can be taken to the order of the trial Court for directing handing over of the possession of the suit land by the receiver to respondents simultaneous to the passing of the decree in the suit. However, the learned counsel made a grievance that in the suit the prayer was only for 13 Ghuntas of land while the possession was handed over to respondent for an area which was in excess of the area of suit land. There is nothing either in the judgment of the trial Court or the first appellate Court to show that any such contention was raised. There is also no finding by the Courts below that the petitioners were in possession of an area which was in excess of the area claimed in the suit. It is, therefore, not possible to give any finding on the above contention of learned counsel at this stage. However, if the petitioner has been dispossessed from any area which was not included in the suit, it is open to him to agitate the same before the executing Court or he may follow such other remedy as may be available to him under the law. There is no merit in this petition which accordingly dismissed summarily.