' Briefly stated, the facts forming background of this case are; land measuring 9 kanals 19 marlas, Khasra Nos, 2462, 2608 and 2656 was mortgaged by the forefathers of the petitioners Nos,2 and 3 with the predecessor of respondent No,1. As a result of settlement, khasra numbers were changed to 1224 and 1306 (hereinafter called "disputed land").
2. The predecessor of petitioners Nos,2 and 3 applied for redemption of the disputed land and the Collector/Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties ordered restitution of the same in favour of the petitioners vide order dated 27-2-1971. The petitioners thereafter secured orders for issuance of warrant for possession on 16-7-1971 and vide rapt No,289 were delivered possession and Mutation No, 2018 was sanctioned accordingly. It was subsequently sold to Sardar, father of petitioner No,1.
3. Respondent No,1 filed a suit for possession qua "disputed land" alongwith one Khasra No,1216. He pleaded that he had become owner of Khasra No,1216 on the basis of adverse possession. About "disputed land" plea set up was that the petitioners Nos,2 and 3 having failed to redeem it within sixty years, he had become its absolute owner. He asserted that he had been dispossessed forcibly from both the lands, and thus was forced to file the suit. The suit was contested but was decreed on 31-10-1975. Appeal filed was partly accepted qua Khasra No,1216, but rejected qua disputed land.
This is vide judgment dated 14-1-1976 by Sh. Lutaf-ur-Rehman, Addl. District Judge.
' The petitioners filed review. By that time Sh. Lutaf-ur-Rehman had been transferred and Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Malik had taken over as Addl. District Judge. He dismissed the review petition on 19-7-1981.
4. The learned Addl. District Judge held that the petitioners had not annexed with review petition the copies of the judgment and decree sought to be reviewed, though they were legally obliged to file at least copy of the decree and as such the review petition merited dismissal. He further found that neither any error patent on the face of the record was pointed out nor any sufficient cause was shown to review the impugned judgment.
5. Initially Writ Petition (P.W. No, 979/82) was filed which was admitted to regular hearing. On 1-12- 1992, prayer was made for conversion of the same into revision petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties I snowed this prayer, which was not seriously opposed by learned counsel for respondent No,1.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that copy of Mutation No,2018 evidencing the implementation of order of Collector dated 27-2-1971 restituting the disputed land was available on record, and though not formally exhibited, should have been noticed by the trial Court as well as the lower appellate Court and failure to do so and the consequential judgment against the petitioners amounted to grave irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction on their part.
This provided ample justification for seeking review before the lower appellate Court. It is also contended, relying on "Gavand Singh v. Ata Singh" (AIR 1938 lah 295) that copy of judgment or decree sought to be reviewed need not be filed alongwith review petition in terms of Order 47, Rule 3, C.P.C. This provision when read in conjunction with section 114, C.P.C. Can be rightly termed to be enabling one and not destructive of statutory right of review conferred upon a litigant.
7.. Mr. Khan Muhammad Bajwa, learned counsel for respondent No,1 has not seriously contested the proposition that copy of the judgment and/or decree impugned in the review petition need not be filed, along therewith. However, he has vehemently opposed the revision petition on the grounds:-
(a) the judgment dated 14-1-1976 was pronounced by Sh. Lutaf-urRehman, Addl. District Judge, and before the review could be file , he had been transferred. The review petition filed later on and entertained by the successor Additional District Judge Muhammad Ramzan Malik was legally incompetent. In this contex he has relied on Rashid Ahmad v. Muhammad Ramzan PLD 1961 B.J 76.
According to him, therefore, nothing would turn on the mistake committed by him in dismissing the review petition on ground of lack of filing of copies of the judgment and decree sought to be reviewed, as the same merited to be dismissed on the above technical ground;
(b) the order of A.C/Collector dated 16-7-1971 purportedly restituting the disputed land did not form part of record of trial Court. No formal application for additional evidence was moved, either at the appellate stage. The petitioners could not, therefore, seek review of a judgment which is based on appraisement of material on record; and
(c) the only reason advanced for filing copy of the order dated 16-7-1971 alongwith the review application was that, earlier, this could not be done due to "accidental mistake" and that great injustice had been occasioned as result of the impugned judgment. This could hardly be treated to constitute a valid ground for review.
8. The petitioners had placed copy of Mutation No,2018 on the record of the trial Court, though not formally exhibited and this position is not specifically denied vide para 2 of written statement (on merits).
' It is true that the petitioners did not apply for permission to lead additional evidence before lower appellate Court so as to get the said mutation formally exhibited but this did not absolve either the trial Court or the lower appellate Court to notice it. Had the said document been considered, the fate of the case would have been different.
' It has been laid down by Supreme Court in Khurshid Ali's case (PLD 1992 SC 822 at 824, 825) as under: "mere failure to exhibit a document formally would not make any difference and if was found necessary for just decision of the case, the material relied upon by the party should be summoned and treated as evidence in the case without any formalities.
' In the instant case, the copy of Mutation No,2018 being on the record of trial Court should have, therefore, been treated as evidence in the case and necessary conclusions drawn therefrom. The trial Court failed to perform its legal duty and its judgment suffered from non-reading of material evidence. The judgment of lower appellate Court suffered from same defect.
9. Justice has to be meted out to the litigants, irrespective of their failings to properly pursue their causes, and technicalities have to be avoided unless it is essential to comply with them on grounds of public policy. The procedure is provided by C.P.C. To help and not thwart the grant to the people their rights. Their Lordships of Supreme Court in Khurshid Ali's case, Supra have laid down: "It is incorrect to think now under an Islamic dispensation that the Courts are only to sit and watch as to who commits a mistake, and who does not commit a mistake, from amongst the contesting litigants, and one who commits mistake in procedural matters should be deprived of the right claimed; even if he is entitled to it "
' The purpose of adjudication of a lis is to reach the truth and to see that right claimed, if found due is acknowledged and awarded to the suitor. A dishonest litigant, winning a lis, only on technical pleas, can neither live without pangs of conscience in this world not rest in peace in the life hereafter. In my view, it is his obligation, rather, to point out before the Court the weakness of his case rather than hide it, In respect of the fact that opponent had failed to plead the same. Likewise, it is the bounden duty of the Courts to discourage dishonest litigation and in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by law to take suitable measures/steps in the cases so that the dishonest litigant is denied the relief.
10. Applying the principle of law enunciated by Supreme Court, with profound respect, to the facts of the case, I find that grave miscarriage of justice has been occasioned in this case, justifying interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.
11. It is not denied that order dated 27-2-1971 directing restitution of mortgaged land being Khasra Nos,1224 and 1306 was passed in favour of the petitioneRs, I may refer to the averment of the respondent Faqir Muhammad in the written statement to the writ petition (W.P. No, 974/82 now civil revision): ' Preliminary objection No,1 ' Another prayer in the writ petition is to seek the declaration that order dated 27-2-1971 is legal and binding on the parties. It is submitted that a declaration cannot be made as the order dated 16-1- 1971 passed by the Collector, is subject to the decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge and unless that decree is set aside in proper proceedings, the order of Collector will remain subject to the terms of decree."
' Validity of the order dated 27-2-1971 was not challenged by respondent No,1 in his suit, and the same had thus attained finality qua him. Even otherwise, it is doubtful as to whether the said order was at all open to a challenge vide section 17 of West Pakistan Redemption and Restitution of Mortgaged Lands Act, 1964. Despite all this, it is being argued before me that the decree of the trial Court as modified by lower appellate Court should not be touched meaning thereby that the respondent be permitted to retain what really does not belong to him, and all this only due to mishandling of the case of the petitioners before the trial Court and the technical objections prevailing with lower appellate Court resulting in rejection of the review of the petitioneRs, It would be travesty of justice if despite admitted position on facts, the relief which is due to the petitioners, is not granted to them.
12. In my view, this is eminently just and proper case for exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court to undo the wrong. Respondent No,1 was not at all entitled to the decree prayed for by him.
The land in dispute stood redeemed under orders of competent authority and he was fully aware of it. He successfully prevented this reality from being highlighted till it was ultimately blurted out by him in the written statement filed in this Court. The Courts below failed to read Mutation No,2018 in evidence, and thus committed grave irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in them.
These judgments/decrees cannot be sustained.
' It is the duty of This Court under section 115, C.P.C. Which enables it "to make such orders in the case as it thinks fit", to restore to the petitioners what legally belongs to them.
13. The revision petition is accordingly allowed, and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dated 14-1-1976, to the extent of upholding the decree of the trial Court regarding Khasras Nos,1226 and 1306 is set aside. The result would be that the suit of the respondent stands dismissed in toto. The petitioners are held entitled to costs throughout.