' On 29-1-1985, Mst. Nawab Begum filed a suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner of the disputed property and that the action taken by the Province of the Punjab and 3 others, petitioners/defendants, for requisitioning the disputed property was illegal, void and ineffective against her rights, against the Province of the Punjab and others, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Lahore. The suit was resisted, whereon the following issues were framed:-- "(1) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to enterain the present suit? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is barred under section 4 of the Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is barred under res judicata? OPD
(5) Whether the act of the defendants requisitioning the property in dispute is illegal, void, ultra vires and has no legal effect on the right of the plaintiff? OPP
(6) Relief."
2. The parties led their evidence. The respondent/plaintiff produced Salahud Din P.W.1. She herself appeared as P.W.2. She tendered documents Ex. P.1 to Ex.P.3 in evidence. To rebut this evidence, the defendants produced Muhammad Asghar D.W.1 and Muhammad Ashraf D.W.2. The trial Court decreed the suit on 30-10-1989. The appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 19-5-1990, hence this revision.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Appellate Court has failed to.
Prepare the decree-sheet in accordance with the provisions of Rule 35 of Order 41 of the C.P.C.; that before filing the suit, the respondent/plaintiff had filed an application for ejectment, which was withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one. Instead of filing fresh application before the Rent Controller, the respondent has filed the suit, which is not maintainable under Order 23 Rule 1 of the C.P.c.; that the findings of the Courts below on issue No,5 suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence and that since the disputed property was validly requisitioned, therefore, the suit was not maintainable under sections 11 and 12 of the Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with care. I do not feel persuaded to agree with him. I find that the onus to prove issues Nos. 2, 3 and 4 was on the petitioners/defendants. They did not care to produce the notification whereby the disputed property was requisitioned by them and, as such, it cannot be said that the disputed property was validly requisitioned. Muhammad Asghar D.W. 1 has stated that Requisition {{URDU TEXT}} Requisition ' No doubt, Muhammad Ashraf D.W.2 has stated that he had brought the requisitioned, order with him, but strangely enough the same was not placed on the record. Since the fact that the school was requisitioned by the petitioners could be proved by the documentary evidence which has been withheld, therefore, no exception can be taken to the findings of the trial Court on issue No,3.
The application for ejectment before the Rent Controller is not a suit within the meanings of Order 23, Rules 1 and 2 of the C.P.C., therefore, the plaintiff/respondent was not precluded from filing the present suit. In the decree-sheet attached with the judgment of the learned Appellate Court, the number of the appeal, names of the parties and the amount of the costs have been stated and the same is also signed by the learned Additional District Judge. Mere omission of clear specification of the relief granted, in the circumstances, does not amount to illegality or material irregularity. I do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading or non-reading of material evidence by the Courts below.
5. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not find any justification to interfere in exercise of my revisional powers with the well-reasoned judgments and decrees of the Courts below, so the petition is dismissed in limine.