' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---In this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 petitioners have laid challenge to judgment dated 7-10-1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby their Civil Revision No,1186 of 1991 was dismissed.
2. A brief resume of facts is that the predecessor-in-interest of the private-respondents herein namely--Abdul Haq filed a suit for declaration that he was the transferee of the suit shop vide order dated 25-1-1960 of the Settlement Authorities and that he is entitled to its possession. Both the petitioners admitted that the transfer was so made to the deceased-plaintiff but pleaded that the said order was illegal. After putting the contentions of the parties to issues and after receiving evidence in the case, the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 13-3-1985.
The respondents filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 13-3-1985 and a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore allowed the same and decreed their suit vide judgment and decree dated 20-5-1991. The petitioners remained unsuccessful in their Civil Revision there-against before the High Court, with the following observations: "3. I have gone through the certified copies of the record appended by the petitioners with the Civil Revision. The petitioner had admitted the transfer of suit shop in favour of the predecessor in the interest of the respondents. The case, however, was that the transfer is not legal. The learned Additional District Judge in his judgment has found that the petitioner availed of remedy against the said order of transfer in the settlement hierarchy without any success. Then he invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, which was dismissed and his ICA also failed. Not contended with this the petitioners filed a civil suit, the plaint wherein was rejected by the Civil Judge after hearing both the parties. The said facts were supported by Exh.PWI/1 to Exh. PW 1/3. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to controvert the said observations of the learned Additional District Judge based on the evidence on record and referred to by him in his judgment. He, however, contends that as against the said decision delivered in proceedings inter parties, the learned Additional District Judge should have relied upon a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No, 13-R of 1965 a copy whereof is on record and marked "A". I find that this decision was rendered in a writ petition filed by one Muhammad Rafiq against, among others, Abdul Haq the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The petitioner was not a party to the said writ petition. The petitioners in the writ petition had questioned the transfer of shop in his possession in favour of the said Abdul Haq. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded back vide judgment dated 14-5-1969 for a fresh decision after hearing the parties. I fail to understand as to how the said decision of this Court could be relied upon for the decision of controversy involved in the present suit, as neither the petitioner was party to the same nor was the shop in his possession a subject-matter of the said lis.
"4. I find that the impugned judgment is supported by the evidence on record, not controverted by the petitioner hereunder, and no case of misreading or non-reading of evidence has been made out. This Civil Revision is accordingly dismissed with costs."
2. Hence this petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Sh. Abdul Qayyum, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing in support of this petition. He was of the view that as the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was a clerk in the Settlement Office Centre No,5, he had manoeuvred a fraudulent insertion into PTO No,041536 dated 25-1-1960 in relation to Property No,S-XX-5-S-31, Main Bazar, Canal Park, Lahore. A Permanent Transfer Deed was also obtained and the word 'shop' was scored off, fraudulently. The factum of transfer of only residential portion of the property in question alone was, in fact, resolved by the High Court in Writ Petition No,13/R of 1965 titled Muhammad Rafiq v. Abdul Haq etc., on 14-5- 1969. According to him, even all other pleas taken by the respondents prior to the transfer of the above property i,e, (1) submission of only NCH Form for the transfer of the house in his possession and (2) not claiming the transfer of any shop, clearly point to the position on the spot that the evacuee shop-premises were not transferred to their predecessor.
4. We are afraid the contentions being raised on behalf of the petitioners are far off the mark. The learned Judge in Chambers considered the plea being raised by the petitioners even now and, by making a reference to the decision in Writ Petition No,13/R of 1965 by the High Court, came to the conclusion that "..I find that this decision was rendered in a writ petition filed by one Muhammad Rafiq against among others, Abdul Haq the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The petitioner was not a party to the said writ petition. The petitioners in the writ petition had questioned the transfer of shop in his possession in favour of said Abdul Haq. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded back vide judgment dated 14-5-1969 for a fresh decision after hearing the parties. I fail to understand as to how the said decision of this Court could be relied upon for the decision of controversy involved in the present suit, as neither the petitioner was a party to the same nor was the shop in his possession a subject-matter of the said lis." (Underlining is for emphasis). Moreover, the learned Judge in Chambers was of the considered view that the judgment impugned before him was supported by evidence on the record which could not be controverted by the petitioners and that no case of misreading or non-reading of evidence had been made out. Looked in this background, the instant petition cannot but be dismissed and leave refused. Order accordingly.