This civil revision is directed against order dated 12-12-1992 of the Additional District Judge Sargodha decreeing the suit of respondent for possession in respect of disputed land.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent Muhammad Hussain filed a suit for possession of an Ihata measuring about one Kanal, as per details mentioned in the plaint, on the ground that petitioners were licensee of the suit property. The suit was resisted, written statement was filed and out of showing the allotment of disputed Khata in favour of respondent. Petitioner produced oral evidence D.W.1 Ghulam Rasool. D.W.2 Muhammad Aslam and D.W.3 as his own witness.
3. The revision petition was still in motion when petitioners filed C.M.2-93 for permission to repair the disputed property but the same was not pressed and learned counsel was prepared to argue the main revision petition and in pursuance thereof, the case has been fixed for today and Mufti Muhammad Tufail Gavindi, learned counsel for respondent, has entered appearance. , .
4. Learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 16-10-1989 dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that respondent was not able to prove his ownership but at the same time held that petitioners were illegal occupants of the same. It was observed by him in para. 8 that "no doubt the status of the defendants (petitioners) in respect of the disputed Ihata is of an illegal occupant but this is a matter of secondary importance because the Court has to see the relief, claimed by the plaintiff and the evidence produced by him to substantiate that claim". The entire judgment of trial Court, therefore, proceeds on the premises that respondent has not been able to prove his ownership.
S. Respondent filed an appeal where an application was filed for additional evidence and copy of order dated 16-12-1989, allotting disputed Ihata in favour of respondent, was produced and this was admitted by the petitioners. In fact, this is an order passed in appeal filed by present petitioners requesting for the cancellation of allotment of Ihata but this request was not accepted by the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) vide his order dated 16-12-1989. This .order is also referred to by the Appellate Court in para. 8 of impugned order. The entire evidence has been considered by the Appellate Court and came to an irresistible conclusion that respondent was able to prove his ownership and, therefore, his suit for possession was decreed.
6. 1 have gone through the order of the trial Court dated 16-10-1989 and that of Appellate Court dated 12-12-1992 and find that the trial Court has committed a manifest illegality in not considering the documentary evidence produced by the respondent in accordance with law-and wrongly held under issue No.6 that respondent was not able to prove his ownership. Exh. P1 and Exh. P2 are the copies of Register Haqdaran relating to the year 1986-87 and 1982-83 where in ownership column, Provincial Government has been shown but there are remarks that the Ihata has been transferred in favour of respondent. In view of this documentary evidence, learned Civil Judge could not have come to the conclusion otherwise that respondent was not allottee/owriei ' of the Ihata' iri 'question: Similarly, there are rent receipts Exh. P3 to Exh.P6 in the name of respondent showing tjiat he was paying the rent of the disputed Ihata to the Cantonment Board. In addition, the matter is clinched in view of order dated 16-12-1989 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Rev.) to the effect that disputed Ihata was in the name of respondent. This order was passed at the instance of petitioner reque9ting that disputed Ihata may be cancelled from the name of respondent. While decreeing the suit of respondent, learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 12-12-1992 held that "the documents P.1 and P.2 are from record of rights and they have got great evidentiary value as compared to the receipts of WAPDA and receipts issued by Cantonment Board in name of the respondent. Moreover, as additional evidence one order passed by Additional Commissioner, Revenue was admitted during the hearing of the appeal and no rebuttal to this was produced by the respondent. This document shows that an appeal filed by the respondent against the allotment of the Ihata in favour of the appellant was dismissed on 16-12-1989. Thus there is a strong documentary evidence together with the oral evidence in favour of the appellant as compared to the respondent. The findings of the learned trial Court on this issue are, therefore, reversed. In view of the .documentary evidence produced by the respondent and dilated upon by the Appellate Court, there was no legal justification for the lower Court to have dismissed the suit of respondent and it was rightly decreed by the Appellate Court. Respondent has been able to prove beyond any, shadow of doubt that petitioner had obtained the Ihata in question from him as a licensee but refused to surrender the possession of the same on his demand. In this view of the matter, respondent was legally justified to bring an action before the Civil Court.
7. It has been held in PLD 1986 SC 88 "Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others" that revisional jurisdiction under section lfS was primarily intended for correcting errors made by subordinate Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction. No such situation is available on the facts of this case.
7. Admittedly, petitioners have not produced documentary evidence on the file of this revision petition which was produced before the lower Court in the form of Exh.Pl to Exh.P6 nor any application has been riled for dispensation thereof. It has been held in PLD 1988 Lahore 329 "Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Luck Fruit Products" that where such a defect occurs, revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. Looked from any angle, petitioners have not been able to make out any case in their favour.
Resultantly, there is no merit in the revision petition which is dismissed inlimine.