On 17-4-1984 Muhammad Siddique respondent filed suit for possession of haveli situate in Village Bhatay Kalan, Tehsil and District Sialkot against Ghulam Nabi petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge, Sialkot. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff while in possession of haveli had illegally been dispossessed by the defendant two days before the filing of the suit. The suit was resisted and following issues were framed:- ISSUES:- (1)Whether the plaintiff is owner of disputed haveli? OPP (1A) Whether the property has been correctly described? If so, its effects? OPP (2)Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit? OPD.
(3)Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his conduct to file this suit in view of preliminary objection No.2 of the written statement? OPD.
(4)Whether the plaint is not properly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction. 1f so, its correct value? OPD.
(5)Whether the defendant has violated the order or status quo issued by this Court. If so, its effect?
OPP.
(5A) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
(5B) Whether the plaintiff has possessory rights over the suit property from his forefathers and when he was dispossessed? OPP.
(6) Relief."
The parties led evidence. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land as a "Muyeen" and was dispossessed on 15-5--1980 or even prior to that. The trial Court was also of the view that the suit should have been filed within 6 months of dispossession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, and as such, the same was barred by time. Finding issues Nos.1, 1-A, 2, 3, 4 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and issues Nos.5 and 5-A against him, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 25-11-1987. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Muhammad Siddique filed appeal which was accepted and the suit decreed by the learned Additional District Judge on 10-9- 1989, hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the plaintiff/ respondent was dispossessed in the year 1980 as held by the trial Court, therefore, the suit filed by him on 7-1-1984 was barred by time; that since the plaintiff/respondent has alleged illegal dispossession from the haveli, two days before the filing of the suit (which he could not prove) so, the suit could not have been filed after six months of his alleged dispossession; that the well-reasoned judgment of the trial Court has been set aside by the appellate Court without cogent reasons and that the appellate Court has misread the evidence.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff/respondent had filed suit for possession of haveli (immovable property) alleging his possession and subsequent dispossession by defendant. So under Article 142 of the Limitation Act, he could file suit within 12 years of his proved dispossession. In view of the A findings of the trial Court that the petitioner was dispossessed in the year 1980, the suit filed by him in year 1984 was well within time. Under Section 9 of Specific Relief Act a person dispossessed without his consent of immovable property may by suit recover possession thereof within 6 months of his dispossession. It is discretionary with him to file or not to file suit for the recovery of possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The section provides summary procedure for grant of relief to the person dispossessed from immovable property without his consent and does not debar him to file a suit for possession on the allegations of possession and dispossession within 12 years of the date of his dispossession under Article 142 of the Limitation Act. When a person is dispossessed against his consent, two remedies are open to him. He may either file suit for the recovery of property through summary procedure within 6 months B under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, or he may file a suit for the recovery thereof within 12 years of his dispossession. The remedy under Section 9 is an additional remedy and does not prohibit suit for possession on possessory title in the ordinary way in a proper case even though the suit is brought beyond six months. Section 9 is not intended to abridge any rights possessed by a plaintiff, it rather gives him the right to have possession restored without reference to the title on which he holds and that which the dispossessor asserts. The learned appellate Court was quite competent to reverse the findings of the trial Court on any issue.
Neither any order under Section 22 of Punjab Pre-emption Act passed by the appellate Court nor the order made by the trial Court under this section has been challenged in this revision. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any mis-reading/non-reading of material evidence by the appellate Court. I do not see any illegality or material irregularity in judgment of the appellate Court. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are devoid of force and substance.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is dismissed in limine.