The relevant facts for the decision of the present revision petition are that respondents Nos.l to 8 purchased. Land measuring 13 kanals 17 marlas situated in Mauza Chak Tehsil Shujabad District Multan through registered sale-- deed dated 8-4-1981 for a total consideration of Rs.60,000. The petitioners filed a suit to pre-empt this sale. There was yet another suit by respondent No.9 for the same purpose. The vendee resisted both the suits, which were consolidated by the trial Court and following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether both the suits are not maintainable in the present form?
(2) Whether both the suits are within the period of limitation?
(3) Whether both the suits are not properly valued for the purpose of court-- fees and jurisdiction?
(4) Whether both the suits are bad for partial pre-emption?
(5) Whether the plaintiff and the rival pre-emptor are estopped to bring their suits by their own conduct?
(6) Whether both the suits are benami and collusive?
(7) Whether description of the suit land in both the suits is incorrect?
(8) Whether 1/5th amount was deposited in both the suits within time?
(9) Whether the plaintiff has got superior right as against the vendees and the rival pre-emptors?
(10) Whether the suit price Rs.60,000 was fixed and paid in fact in good faith?
(11) If so, what was the market value of the suit land at the time of sale?
(12) Whether the vendees were entitled to any cost of improvement and cost of registration, if so, how much?
(13) Relief."
2. The parties led their respective evidence. The trial Court after hearing the arguments decreed the suit of the present. Petitioners vide judgment and decree dated 30-9-1985 while the suit of respondent No,9 was dismissed. The respondents-vendees impugned this judgment and decree through an appeal in the Court of District Judge. The same came up for adjudication on the file of Additional District Judge, Multan who accepted the same, reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the petitioners as well vide judgment and decree dated 19- 1-1987. The present revision is directed against this judgment and decree.
3. The revision was admitted to hearing, and notices were issued to the respondents. It is the vendees only, who have entered appearance and contested the revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that in fact there were only 8 vendees as is clear from the attested copies of the sale-deed Exs.P9, D1 and D9 but Muhammad Ramzan was introduced by interpolation in the sale-deed Ex.Dll. The purpose was to raise the plea of partial pre-emption and defeat the suit of the petitioners.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-vendees has argued that the story of interpolation is merely a concoction. The same stands falsified by Mutation No.795 dated 11-5-1981 which was sanctioned on the basis of this sale-deed and copy of the same is Ex/D12. It is added that mutation was entered on 1-5-1981 and was sanctioned on 11-5-1981 while the suit was filed by the petitioners much thereafter on 6-4-1982. The learned counsel argued that story of interpolation is further disproved by copy of the Jamabandi Ex.P4 which was procured by the petitioners on 10- 4-1982. The name of all the nine vendees are duly mentioned. He concluded his arguments with the submission that Muhammad Ismail petitioner No.2 submitted an application before the lower appellate Court wherein he conceded that in fact there were 9 vendees and name of Muhammad Ramzan was inadvertently omitted from the list of defendants. He also made statement to this effect.
5. 1 have given my considerations to the arguments of learned counsel for both sides and gone through the record. There is no doubt that the original sale --deed was not faithfully copied by the registration branch in the register of documents maintained there and further that the copies of the sale-deed supplies to the pre-emptors were also not true copies of the text of the sale-deed incorporated in the office of the Sub-Registrar Shujabad. I will be dealing with this matter separately but presently I will deal with the arguments of learned counsel for the parties touching the merits of the revision. The learned counsel l for the petitioners has pointed out that since the name of Muhammad Ramzan vendee was not mentioned in the copy Ex.P9 supplied to the petitioners, therefore, he could not be arrayed as defendant in the suit filed by them. But on the other hand it is admitted position on record that the vendees m their written statement had raised preliminary objection No.5 to the effect that the suit is bad for partial pre-emption. This written statement was filed on 13-11-1982. This is l also admitted on record that the petitioners had procured the copy of Jamabandi Ex.P4 on 10-4-1982 and that the name of said Muhammad Ramzan was duly incorporated in the mutation sanctioned in favour of the vendees on the basis of sale-deed, therefore, if the petitioners as persons with ordinary prudence had l taken the precaution and rechecked the position then they could have easily found out the background of the preliminary objection but there is nothing on' record to show that they exercised due care and caution. This is not all. Even when the fact that the name of Muhammad Ramzan has been omitted became known to them they did not move and submit application for impleading the said Muhammad Ramzan as a defendant. Now the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners revolved round the point that Muhammad Ramzan is not a purchaser. It is not possible for this Court or any Court to give any finding adverse to a party in its absence. This way the petitioners were again guilty of gross negligence at second stage.
6. I have gone through the original sale-deed. Prima facie the name of Muhammad Ramzan is properly included in the same. I have also gone through the statements of Abdur Rehman P.W.2 and find not a word about the alleged interpolation. Then there is statement of Faiz Bakhsh, defendant, as one of the vendees as DW.2. The petitioners have failed to cross-examine and confront the witness with the alleged interpolations, additions, erasures etc. In the sale-deed. This way they were again negligent on third stage and without the attention of DW.2 having been invited to the said discrepancies the petitioners cannot take any benefit. This also heavily weighs against them.
7. Now coming to the state of affairs which I have noticed prevalent in the office of Sub-Registrar. It is deplorable that the official entrusted with the duty of copying the document in the register maintained by Sub-Registrar did not faithfully copy the sale-deed. This is not all. Again the copies obtained by the pre--emptors from the Sub-Registrar's office are not true copy of the text recorded in the register. This amounts to dereliction of duty on the one hand and defeating very purpose for which the office of Sub-Registrar has been established. I am told that now a practice has been introduced according to which 3 copies are delivered by the parties to the Sub-Registrar at the time of the presentation of the documents for registration . It is these copies, which are pasted in the register of documents. It is clear from the statement of Zaffar Ali Sub- Registrar, Shujabad that this practice is not universally followed by all the Sub-Registrars in the Province. It is for the Government to enact strict rules in this behalf, so that purpose of maintaining the office of Sub- Registrar is achieved and the officials are not allowed to play havoc with the rights of people. It is not material whether this is done on account of negligence, carelessness or for corrupt motives. Let copy of this judgment be sent to the Secretary Law Government of Punjab for taking up the matter in the concerned quarters.
8. 1 have noted that the trial Courts mostly do not follow the provisions of Orders VII, VIII and XIII C.P.C. With regard to the filing and relying of documents. In this case the suit was filed on 6-4-1982.
The plaintiffs appended with the same photocopy of the certified copy of the registered sale-deed, list of heirs and copy of the plaint. These are the documents mentioned in the list of documents appended with the plaint as required under Order XIII Rule 1 C.P.C. While in the list of reliance, copies of Jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari, net profits, mutation, assessment of land revenue, sale-deed, copy of Jamabandi were mentioned. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement on 13-11-1982. The issues were framed on 23-11-1982. The defendants along with the written statement appended list of documents wherein the documents mentioned were written statement, Fard Patta, list of documents, list of reliance and list of heirs. They, however, produced sale-deed and receipt from District Council on 31-3-1985 while other documents were placed on record sometimes thereafter which is ascertainable.
9.It is the duty of the trial Courts to see that the documents are presented properly and at the time prescribed by the Civil Procedure Code. These provisions are not just for decoration purposes but are meant not only to be observed but strictly followed. This usual indifferent attitude on the part of the trial Courts to check submission of the documents is one of the main reasons for 1 delay in the conclusion of trials. It is the duty of the lower appellate Courts to require strict compliance of the provisions and in cases of non-observance they should warn the concerned trial Courts and if necessary record adverse remarks in their A.C.Rs. This is high time to enforce faithful compliance of the provisions of C.P.C. It is also the duty of the learned members of the Bar to complete the list of documents and list of reliance themselves. In this case the list was appended just in routine without caring to complete the same in accordance with the provisions of law. The defendants in their list of documents, as already noted has mentioned the documents, viz. Written statement, Fard Patta, list of documents, list of reliance and list of heirs. These are not the documents, which are required to be entered in the list of documents to be appended with the plaint or the written statement. These forms should be properly and correctly completed and duly signed by the learned counsel. The trial Courts should insist for strict compliance of these provisions in order to bound down the parties and avoid any, complication at the advance stage of the trial. The result is that I do not find any merit in this revision petition. The same is dismissed.