' The Province of Punjab filed this revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. To challenge the judgment and decree dated 3-11-1991 of the learned Additional District Judge whereby the first appeal of the Province was dismissed and consequently the ex parte judgment and decree dated 8-9-1990 of the trial Court was maintained.
2. The facts briefly stated are that Ghulam Hussain respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on the plea that he is owner of land measuring 432 Kanals and 14 Marlas detailed in the plaint and that the entitlement of the respondent-plaintiff was sorted out during the consolidation proceedings vide order, dated 22-4-1975 of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Cons.), Lahore and corresponding entries were made in the Revenue Record vide Mutation No,2763. It was asserted that this mutation was, however, not sanctioned by officer of the Government and a subsequent Mutation No,2747 as well as earlier Mutation No,2763 were cancelled vide order dated 20-7-1988. Grievance of the respondent-plaintiff was that the orders cancelling the mutations were illegal, unauthorized, mala fide and consequently merit to be set aside as the plaintiff is the original owner of the land in dispute. The orders dated 14-7-1988 and 20-7-1988 in respect of these mutations were thus sought to be declared to be illegal and ineffective in law.
3. The petitioner-defendant failed to contest the suit which was decreed ex parte by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 9-3-1989. This judgment was assailed in appeal and the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 29-10-1989 remanded the suit with the direction to proceed with the same afresh by making Additional Revenue Commissioner (Settlement and Rehabilitation), Lahore as party to the suit as defendant, if such an application is made on his behalf and also to ask the defendant, the Provincial Government, to file the written statement. It appears from the record that after remand, an application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. Was filed.
After hearing the parties, learned trial Court dismissed the said application on 30-1-1990. The suit again proceeded ex parte as the defendant had already failed to tarn up. Application for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed by the trial Court on 12-3-1990. It is also pertinent to note that a revision was filed challenging the order of dismissal of the application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. As well as the order proceeding ex parte but this revision was also dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge vide order, dated 31-7-1990. The Province thereafter did not agitate the matter any further. The suit was again decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 8-9- 1990. This judgment was then assailed by the Province by filing first appeal which was dismissed vide judgment dated 3-11-1991; hence this revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the Province argued that the trial Court should not have decreed the suit as the evidence produced before it was not sufficient to substantiate the assertions made in the suit.
He pointed out that Muhammad Siddique, P.W.1 in his statement has stated that one of the mutation was only for 34 Kanals and 3 Marlas. It was next argued that in the Revenue Record, Central Government was recorded as owner of the land and as such in the absence of Central Government, no decree could be granted.
5. I have gone through the evidence on record with the assistance of 'learned counsel for the parties. The evidence led by the respondent-plaintiff comprises of statement of Muhammad Siddique (P.W.1), Ghulam Hussain (P.W.2) and after remand Haji Karim Patwari was produced as P.W.3. In addition, Jamabandis for the year 1937-38 (Exhs.P/1, P/2) 1952-1953 (Exh.P/3) were also produced. It is true that Muhammad Siddique (P.W.1) deposed that the mutation was entered in respect of land measuring 432 Kanals and 14 Marlas but it was scored out later on and the land measuring 34 Kanals 3 Marlas was recorded. This statement is, however, of no significance as the witness did not give the details of the land recorded in both the Mutations 2763 and 2747. It, however, could not be denied that Ghulam Hussain, respondent, was owner of the land measuring 432 Kanals and 14 Marlas. This matter has been clarified by the statement of Haji Karim Khan (P.W.1) as he had stated that the total entitlement of the respondent comes to 432 Kanals and 14 Marlas.
Moreover, the identity of Ghulam Hussain is not being disputed. The order of Consolidation Officer (Exh.P/4) dated 27-4-1975 clinches the issue as by the said order claim of the respondent stood established that his previous name was Mansha Singh son of Boota Singh and after embracing Islam his name was Ghulam Hussain son of Ali Muhammad. The suit land so owned by him as such could not be entered in the name of the Central Government and such entry cannot be made basis to deprive the respondent of his due entitlement. Moreover, when the suit was filed the land has come to vest, if at all, in the Province of Punjab under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement)
Act and in these circumstances the Province of Punjab was rightly impleaded as a defendant. This position of law was not controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner before me.
6. This being the position it cannot be urged that evidence produced before the trial Court was insufficient to substantiate the claim of the respondent made in the suit. Moreover, in civil cases suit is to be decided on the basis of the preponderance of evidence available on record. No other point was urged.
' The net result of above discussion is that there is no merit in this revision which fails and is dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.