' Civil Revision No,399-D of 1985 filed by Muhammad Saeed Khan and Mst.Saeeda Khatoon, a son and daughter respectively of Rafique Muhammad Gill, as also Civil Revision No,400/D-85 maintained by Bashir Ahmad, relate to one and the same house bearing No,315/B. Satellite Town, Gujranwala and arise out of respective suits, one for specific performance of agreement of sale thereof filed by the aforementioned brother and sister against 4 legal heirs of Lal Muhammad Gill and the other for dispossession therefrom of Bashir Ahmad filed by Qaisar-ulIslam, a son of the aforementioned Lal Muhammad Gill, on the basis of his title. Both the suits were consolidated in the trial Court and were decided by a single judgment of the trial Court passed on 13-6-1984, whereby the suit for dispossession was decreed in favour of Qaisar-ul-Islam against Bashir Ahmad and the suit for specific performance was dismissed with the findings that it is barred by ',me and even the agreement sued upon (Ex.P.1) is ingenuine and forged. Two appeals there against filed by the said two plaintiffs and Bashir Ahmad were also heard together and dismissed on 7-2-1985 by a learned Additional District Judge whose appellate decrees are challenged now in these two Civil Revisions which have also been heard together. This judgment will deal with both the Civil Revisions.
2. Facts forming the background thereof, briefly stated in their choronological order, are that a plot of land measuring 7. Marlas and 19 Sq.Feet being plot No,315/B, situated in Satellite Town, Gujranwala was allotted in the name of Lai Muhammad Gill, the deceased predecessor of Qaisar- ul-Islam and others. A- building plan (Ex.P.7) was submitted for raising construction over the plot which was approved in the month of September, 1955 and thereafter, a completion certificate (Ex.D.20) was also issued to Lal Muhammad Gill showing the building to have been completed on 17-11-1956 in accordance with the approved building-plan dated 24-9-1955. Then, he appears to have left the country and died abroad on 14-2-1959, vide death certificate Ex.D.21. Although the parties are at variance about the possession in the meanwhile of the plot/house in dispute, yet, the fact of his death abroad is not in dispute. However, after the death of his father Qaisar-ul-Islam secured an order on 19-6-1973 from the Chairman, District Allotment Committee to transfer the plot in his exclusive name on the basis of written consent for the purpose given by the remaining legal heirs of the original allottee Lal Muhammad Gill and a certificate to this effect was issued by the Secretary of the District Allotment Committee in his memo No,STS-73/315-E/750 dated 25-6-1973 (Ex.D.19), and a sale-deed (Ex.D.17) was also accordingly executed in his favour on 10-1-1974 and registered with the Sub-Registrar, Gujranwala.
3. On 18-12-1974, Qaisar-ul-Islam filed a suit against Bashir Ahmad, an occupant of the house in dispute, for a decree for possession thereof being passed in his favour. The suit was resisted by Bashir Ahmad on the plea, inter alia, that the allottee Lal Muhammad Gill was not possessed of the means of raising construction over the plot allotted to him in the year 1954 and could raise only one ordinary room therein but not the entire house in accordance with the terms of his allotment and since the time allowed for the purpose was Fast out therefore, he entered into an agreement for sale on 10-11-1955 with one of his relatives Muhammad Rafique Gill and received his entire cost to also deliver the possession of the plot to him so that he may construct the required house thereon and as soon as the right of ownership is transferred in his name he will execute a registered sale-deed in favour of Rafiq"Muhammad Gill. He went on to plead also that the house had been accordingly constructed by the promise from whom he had got one room on rent some 6/7 years before and the remaining house continues in possession of one Muhammad Afzal Khan who, however, had not been impleaded as a party due to male fides.
4. While the said suit was still pending, the other suit for specificperformance of the agreement dated 10-11-1955 allegedly executed by the deceased Lal Muhammad Gill was filed on 4-2-1977 against his 5 legal-heirs by Saeed Ahmad Khan and Mst.Saeeda Khatoon with the assertion that their father Rafique Muhammad Gill, the holder of the agreement, had died in a road-accident in England. Their plaint, in all its relevant particulars, was a- verbatim reproduction of the written-statement filed by Bashir Ahmad in the earlier suit. Thus, the two suits assumed the character of cross-suits and they were therefore consolidated for trial and proceedings were taken in the subsequent suit filed by Saeed Ahmad Khan and another. Seven consolidated issues, inclusive of that of the relief, were set down for trial of the respective pleas of the parties who led the evidence of their choice. In result, learned trial Judge held that the suit filed on 4-2-1977 for specific performance of the Alleged agreement dated 10-11-1955 was hopelessly barred by time and concluded on the basis of evidence also that the agreement sued upon is not genuine and had rather been forged on a stamp-paper bearing the date 10-11-1959 which had been overwritten as 10-11-1955, a time when Lal Muhammad Gill was not in the country. He also found that the signatures appearing thereon as those of Lal Muhammad Gill do not tally with those appearing in his Passport (Ex.D.16) and in support of this conclusion, he referred also to the signatures appearing on another document Marked 'A' which was also a photo copy of an agreement to sell bearing the same date and number of the petition-writer which was supposed to have been produced by the plaintiffs with their plaint but was not a photo copy of the agreement Ex.P.1 ultimately relied upon by them. Although they denied having produced the document Mark 'A' with their suit, yet, since it had been sealed in the Court in the presence of the counsel for the parties and there was neither a plea nor a chance of its having been substituted, therefore, there was no reason available with the learned trial Judge to rule it out of consideration and he accordingly used it to support his independently reached conclusion about the ingenuineness of Ex.P.1. He also attended to the plea of the plaintiffs that they had constructed the house on the plot in dispute but found that there was no cogent evidence available on the point in the shape of documents evidencing purchase of building-material and concluded that the plea had not been proved. In result, as already stated in the beginning of this judgment, suit for specific performance was dismissed and since Bashir Ahmad's possession was not even asserted to be under any title which was proved in favour of Qaisar-ul-Islam, therefore, a decree for possession was passed in his favour against Bashir Ahmad.
5. Two appeals were filed in the District Court at Gujranwala to challenge the trial Court's decrees.
One appeal was filed by the plaintiffs Saeed Ahmad Khan and his sister wherein, despite the fact that Bashir Ahmad was not a party to the suit, they arrayed him also as a correspondent with Qaisar-ul-Islam and clean left out the remaining three defendants of their suit, the other legal heirs of Muhammad Rafique Gill, against whom also they had sought the relief of specific performance which was negatived by the trial Court. The other appeal was filed by Bashir Ahmad against Qaisar-ul-Islam wherein he also specifically urged pleas challenging the dismissal of the suit for specific performance, in disregard of the fact that he was not a party to that suit and his own appeal could not have got advanced with such pleas and, similarly Saeed Ahmad Khan and his sister raised such pleas in their appeal as related exclusively to the case of Bashir Ahmad wherein they were not a party and had nothing to do with their own case.
' Learned Additional District Judge, who heard both the appeals together, took due notice of the defect in the array of parties before him but preferred to decide the appeals on their merits. He made an exhaustive re-appraisal of the evidence led by the parties and affirmed the findings of the trial Court with regard to ingenuineness and fabrication of the agreement sued upon and dismissed both the appeals by means of a consolidated judgment dated 7-2-1985 by also upholding the trial Court's finding with regard to the suit for specific performance being barred by time under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The other appeal of Bashir Ahmad was dismissed for the reason that his possession, on his own showing, was only permissive and he was not entitled to retain it after the revocation of the permission.
6. Both parties have now come up to this Court on revision and whereas Civil Revision No,399/D-85 has been maintained by Saeed Ahmad Khan and his sister against the dismissal of their suit for specific performance and they have impleaded Qaisar-ul-Islam as the respondent alongwith Bashir Ahmad (not a party in the suit) but have left out the remaining defendants Nos.2 to 4 from being joined in this Civil Revision. The other Civil Revision No,400/D-85 has been maintained by Bashir Ahmad against Qaisar-ul-Islam against the decree for possession passed in his favour. Both the Civil Revisions have been filed simultaneously by the same learned counsel (Mr.Abid Hassan Minto) and whereas in the Civil Revision of Bashir Ahmad there have been made some variations in the narration of facts which are substantially the same as have been put down in the other Civil Revision, the six grounds set forth in both the Civil Revisions are verbatim the same and they relate to the suit for specific performance and not a single reason has been stated in the Civil Revision of Bashir Ahmad to challenge the decree passed against him. This is so, despite the observation made in, paragraph 14 of the appellate judgment as under:- "I have already merttioned that it appears that the interest of the appellants as also Bashir Ahmad appellant in the cross-appeal were common and they were in league with each other. The reason being, that the defence raised in the written statement of Bashir Ahmad was almost the verbatim copy of the allegations made in the present plaint. Moreover, the appellants had challenged the finding of the learned trial Court against Bashir Ahmad and similarly Bashir Ahmad had challenged the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No,5 and against the appellants though he had nothing to do with the execution of the agreement of sale or performance of the same."
' Mr.Abid Hassan Minto has argued both the matters together and whereas he has not assailed the concurrent findings of the two courts below with regard to the suit for specific performance being barred by time, he has addressed arguments only about the question as to whether or not the alleged executant of the agreement Ex.P.1., namely, Lal Muhammad Gill was in the country on the stated date 10-11-1955 and on the basis of dates entered in his Passport Ex.P.16, which he contended are forged, he urged that it appears that Lal Muhammad Gill was in possession of two Passports because his exit from the country is recorded twice without making an endorsement about his return in the meanwhile. He has, however, not been able to state his objection with any consistancy and preferred to remain content with the conjucture made by him on the basis of a mere speculation. He' was not able to dislodge the endorsement made by the Proctor of Emigrant, Karachi at page 7 of the Passport showing Lal Muhammad Gill to have left Karachi on 10-9-1955 for Hong Kong on the basis of ticket Ex.D.14 and, vide endorsement made by the American Express Karachi at page 32 of his Passport, he was also given an exchange of L 9 on 10-9-1955.
' The two courts below have duly attended to the above evidence and concluded that Lal Muhammad Gill was not in the country on the date of alleged execution of the agreement (Ex.P.1) which has further been concurrently found by them to have been forged. These conclusions relate to questions of pure fact and have due support from the record. Learned counsel has not pointed out any error of jurisdiction of the nature of misreading or non-reading of evidence to have been involved therein, therefore, they have to be accepted as sacrosanct for the purpose of revision, the jurisdiction whereabout cannot be held exerciseable on the mere ground that a view to the contrary may also be possible to be reached on the basis of the same evidence. Questions of fact get concluded by the findings duly reached by the Court of first appeal and they do not fall to be re-opened in Second Appeals and more particularly so when such findings are concurrent. The revisional jurisdiction is, however, much more limited in scope, therefore, no interference is open to be made therein with such findings unless an error of jurisdiction is shown to be involved therein.
None has been pointed out by the learned counsel, therefore, his argument cannot be sustained.
This dispute actually gets concluded with the concurrent findings of fact duly reached by the two courts below on the basis of evidence.
7. Although the two courts below have rightly non-suited Saeed Ahmad Khan and his sister in their claim for specific performance on the merits thereof, yet, the trial Court's decree of dismissal of their suit passed in favour of the 4 surviving legal heirs of Rafique Muhammad Gill has become incapable of being reversed on account of the fact that the remaining 3 co-defendants of Qaisar- ul-Islam have been clean left out of the litigation after a decree of dismissal of suit had been passed in their favour as well. They were necessary parties and in their absence decree so passed is not open to be reversed and muchless can an inconsistant decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs in one and the same suit, therefore, the suit for specific 3erformance is not in need of being attended to any further and Jecree of its dismissal has to be upheld.
8. There is no case at all made out in Civil Revision No,399/D of L985 for exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
9. No argument has at all been addressed in Civil RevisionNo,400/D-85 by the learned counsel who has in fact conceded that he fate of the case filed against Bashir Ahmad has to be regulated by the decision of the other case and since he does not have any right or title of his own to be urged in defence thereof, therefore, of title of Qaisar-ul-Islam is upheld in the other suit then the decree or possession passed in his favour would become unexceptionable. 'his, no doubt, is the correct position. Decree for possession passed against Bashir Ahmad, as upheld in the appeal below; is clearly correct.
10. In result, both the Civil Revisions are dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.