' This civil revision arises out of a suit instituted qn 4-2-1980 by Naseer Khan respondent No,1 against the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in the civil Court at Sialkot for a declaration that respondent No,1 was an owner in possession of House No, VIII/868-A situated at Mission Compound, Daska, District Sialkot, being a bona fide purchaser for value and the order/letter, dated 4-12-1979 of the petitioner asking the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot to evict respondent No,1 from the said property was unlawful, without jurisdiction and male fide as such ineffective and inoperative against the rights of the plaintiff/respondent No,1 qua the property alongwith a prayer for permanent injunction as a consequential relief restraining the petitioner from interfering with the possession of respondent No,1 or from dispossessing him therefrom.
2. Respondent No,1 as plainitff alleged in his plaint that he served as a Headmaster of the Christian Mission School, Daska under the Education Board; respondent No,3 and also served the Evangelistic Board lastly as its Chairman so he was allowed an accommodation facility in personage at Daska by respondent No,4 on account of his continued dedication and association with evangelism; respondent No,3 used to pay the house rent which used to be deposited in the account of Evangelistic Board which Board maintained and owned the buildings. Respondent No,1 retired from service as a Headmaster in March, 1972 and as he was a devotee to evangelism he continued in personage as a tenant of respondent No,4. In the year 1974 the Survey Committee under respondent No,4 recommended the very demolition and the sale of the very personage which was a very old building. It was sold to respondent No,1 through a registered sale-deed on 19-6-1979 in consideration of Rs,50,000. Respondent No,1 thereafter demolished the same, constructed after a site plan duly sanctioned a residential portion and a school building in the area and started running an English Medium School whom the petitioner intended to dispossess.
3. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 confessed the suit through their written statements. The petitioner resisted the suit by maintaining that the civil Court had no jurisdiction. The suit was bad for non- joinder of a necessary party i.e. The Education Department. The suit was not maintainable as brought. Respondent No,1 after his retirement from the nationalized school was in illegal possession of the house which was attached to the school for the purposes of the residence of the very headmaster.
4. The learned Civil Judge was of the view that where there stood a question of title involved, a civil Court had the jurisdiction to decide the question despite any bar expressed in any enactment or law for the time being in force. This was held so after considering the submission of the petitioner that the property had been taken over under Martial Law Regulation No, 118, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction under pares. 14 and 15.
' As to the joining of the Education Department as a party the learned Civil Judge expressed that the functionaries of the Education Department were the employees of the Province of the Punjab, the petitioner, therefore, that was not necessary to independently implead them.
' As to issue No,6 that whether respondent No,1 was the owner in possession of the disputed property the main considerations which weighed with the learned Civil Judge while resolving this issue were " that the Chairman of the Evangelistic Board had stated that the suit property was neither attached to the nationalised school nor that was under the management of the Education Board. The Chairman of the Education Board had also admitted that the suit property was not attached to the nationalised school, nor that was under the control and management of the Education Board. The headmaster of the Christian High School, Daska D.W.2 who had stated the property was a part of the school had admitted that there was no record in respect of the property in question. As to the allegation that the repairs were carried out as to the property in question by the Education Board no record had been produced to show the same. It had been admitted (Jacob Sardar D.W.3) that respondent No, 1 used to receive the house rent from the Education Board. The details furnished through the evidence such as funds for repairs and income and expenditure statement, indicated that all those were managed through as to the property in question by the Evangelistic Board. The rent used to be deposited in the account of Evangelistic Board, respondent No,1 used to receive the house rent from the Education Board as Headmaster of the Mission High School. The learned trial Court found no answer from the learned counsel for the petitioner when he was confronted with the question that if the said property was attached to the school and under the management of the Education Board then why respondent No,1 was being given the house rent as its employee. Its ultimate finding was that respondent No,1 had proved on the record that the property was under the management and control of the Evangelistic Board and was not attached to the Christian High School. The petitioner had failed to establish that the same was ever under the management and control of the Education Board. That had been established that the suit property was purchased by respondent No,1 for consideration from the Church of Scotland Trust, the real owner of the property. The petitioner had failed to produce any Gazette notification under which the suit property was taken over or was nationalised as required under section 5 of the Martial Law Regulation No,118. The learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent No,1 as against the petitioner and other respondents, vide its judgment, dated 5-3- 1983.
' Being aggrieved of the above-said judgment and decree the petitioner filed an appeal which came to be decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot. The learned Additional District Judge after analysing the entire evidence adduced by both the sides independently, upheld the findings of the learned trial Court and as a result thereof dismissed the appeal, at the same time dismissing the application made under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. For additional evidence on the ground that the petitioner had not produced any certified copies of the documents intended to be offered as additional evidence, nor any reason was, furnished for not producing the documents before the learned tiral Court, where no application had been moved for permission to produce the documents intended to be cast in evidence. This was, vide his judgment, dated 11-3-1984.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the same questions which have been fairly and squarely met by both the Courts below. The learned counsel has once again pleaded the bar as to the jurisdiction of the civil Court by referring to paras. 14, 15 and 16 of M.L.R. No, 118 of 1972.
' Para. No,14 is not applicable since in the present case no provision of this Regulation or of any rule or order made or notification issued on anything done or any action purporting to be made issued, done or taken thereunder, has been questioned, nor para. No,15 is applicable as nothing has been questioned having been done in good faith under the Regulation or any rule or order made or notification issued thereunder. The submission of the learned counsel that such disputes and the related controversies are to be decided by the Government under para. No,16 and not by the civil Courts, finds no support from the provision effected in para. No,16 since the question having been raised in the suit is not as to any difficulty arising in giving effect to any provision of the Regulation. A simple question involved is that the property claimed by respondent No,1 originally belonged to whom and whether by purchase for valuable consideration the same vested in respondent No,1. The learned counsel has not been able to make a satisfactory reply to the question that when title of a property is involved and in case it is denied then which authority if not the civil Court is to adjudicate upon such a thing.
The ouster of the jurisdiction would have been spelt out of this Regulation had the property claimed by respondent No,1 been attached to the school and as it has been found by both the Courts below that the property is not attached to the school in fact it was first owned by a private institution other than the school then through purchase by respondent No,1, therefore, the issue can never be regarded as having been hit by the provisions of this Regulation.
There have been concurrent findings of both the Courts below on a question of fact i.e. The ownership of the disputed property. However, at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner the record was called for, which has been perused and nothing has been found as derrogatory on the record so as to interfere with the findings arrived at by both the Courts in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. The application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. For producing additional evidence appears to have been rejected on a good reason. This revision petition is dismissed being without any merit.