' The brief facts leading to the institution of the present revision petition are that Rab Nawaz deceased, now represented by Sarfraz etc., his legal representatives, instituted a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the owner in possession of 24 kanals 17/1-2 marlas of land situated in the revenue estate of Golewali Khata No, 159/157 Khatooni No,443, 445 and that the defendants/petitioners were debarred to redeem the property with the consequential relief restraining the defendants/petitioners permanently from posing themselves as owners of the disputed property. It was further prayed that the Revenue Department be directed not to make alteration in the Revenue Record in favour of .The petitioners. A similar declaration was also prayed for in the same suit in respect of 12 kanals of land situated in the same revenue estate bearing Khata No,159/157, Khatooni No, 443, 445. The trial Court decreed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 3-11-1987. The petitioners' appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, vide the judgment and decree dated 26-2-1990.
2. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the plaint, no relief was claimed at all. Precisely, the point is that the prayer at the end of the plaint is missing. Hence, according to the learned counsel, no relief could be granted to the respondents in view of the provisions of Order VII rule 1 (g) of the C.P.C. The point raised by the learned counsel is conspicuously absent from the grounds of revision petition. He cannot be allowed to urge a point not specifically taken in the revision petition. In the grounds of appeal filed by the present petitioners before the learned District Judge, the above-referred point was also not taken. Even otherwise there is no substance in the argument because the prayer made is decipherable from the reading of the plaint as a whole. Apart from the title of the suit given in the beginning, reading of paras 12, 13 and 14 clearly shows the relief claimed by the respondents. It is settled law that in order to determine the relief, the plaint must be looked into as a whole. In this connection, reference may be made to the judgment in the case of Raoji v, Chaturbhuj (AIR 1931 Nagpur 198) in which it was held that the relief claimed in the plaint is to be gathered from the allegations made in the plaint as a whole and not from the isolated averments occurring therein. A similar view was expressed in the cases of Mst. Salma Abbasi and another v. Ahmed Suleman and 2 others (1981 CLC 462) and Samar Gul v. Central Government and others (PLD 1986 SC 35). In Mst. Salma Abbasi's case, it was held with reference to the provisions of Order VII rule 1. Of the C.P.C. That relief was not to be denied merely on the ground that the suit had been wrongly framed. It was further held that a relief, though not specifically prayed for in the plaint, may be granted if it was not inconsistent with the case of the party. After referring to a number of reported cases, the following conclusion was drawn: "From the above-discussed cases, it is evident that a Court is competent to grant relief though not specifically prayed for, or it may grant relief on a ground other than that relied upon in the plaint provided the same can be made out from the averments in the pleadings and the evidence on the record and provided it is not inconsistent with the plaintiff's pleading and that there is no element of surprise to his adversary."
In Samar Gui's case, while interpreting the provisions of Order VII rule 1 of the C.P.C., it was held that the Court was empowered to grant such relief as the justice of the case demanded and for purposes of determining the relief asked for, the whole of the plaint must be looked into so that the substance rather than the form should be examined. Applying the above-said principles in the present case, the Courts below rightly granted the relief to the respondents which was decipherable from a reading of the plaint as a whole and was not inconsistent with the pleadings embodied in the plaint.
3. No other point was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed in limine.