' Brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioners filed a suit for declaration against respondents on the ground that they are owners in possession of the residential house situated in Khata No,29, Khatooni No 32, Khasra No,319 and land measuring 2 Kanals, 3 Marlas. Contents of the plaint further reveal out of which the constructed area was 11 Marlas, in accordance with the Register Haqdarane Zameen, for the year 1989-90 in village Basti Habib, Tehsil and District Bhakkar. Order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 28-7-1993 regarding demolition of the house was against the law and facts and was ineffective on the rights of the petitioners. Respondents filed a written statement controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint.
2. Out of the pleadings of the parties learned trial Court framed the following issues:---
(i) Have plaintiffs no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD.
(ii) Is suit for declaration incompetent in the present forum? OPD.
(iii) Is suit wrongly valued? What is its correct valuation? OPD.
(iv) Are defendants entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C., to what extent? OPD.
(v) Are plaintiffs owners in possession of suit property?
(wA) Are plaintiffs estopped by their conduct and words from filing this suit? OPD-8 (v-B). Has this Court no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this suit? OPD.
(vi) Relief.
' The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 27-9-1997. Respondents being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Bhakkar who reversed the finding of the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence and accepted the appeal. Resultantly the suit of the petitioner stands dismissed vide judgment and decree, dated 21-3-1998.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that judgment of both the Courts below are at variance. It is further contended that the First Appellate Court did not advert to the reasoning of the trial Court. He further urged that the petitioner proved on record by producing 3 witnesses P.W.1 Ganmu, P.W.2 Haq Nawaz, P.W.3 Mehro and Jamabandis for the years 1951-52, 1956-57, 1959-60, 1963-64, 1978-79, 1983-84 and 1989-90 that the land in question was situated in Abadi Deh.
Therefore, claim of the respondents that they got the land in question in consolidation proceedings is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the provision of the Consolidation Ordinance, 1960 is not applicable to the land situated in Abadi Deh. Since the land in question is not subject of consolidation, therefore, respondents did not get the same in consolidation proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner did not advert to this aspect of the case. He further stated that the First Appellate Court wrongly relied upon the report of the Commissioner. He further urged that the report of the Commission is in favour of the petitioners. He summed up his arguments that the First Appellate Court reversed the finding on Issue No,5 without adverting to the evidence on record meaning thereby the finding of the First Appellate Court is result of misreading or non-reading of the record as the petitioners are in possession of the land since their forefathers.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the First Appellate Court. He stated that the First Appellate Court has given finding of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence. He further stated that documentary evidence produced by the petitioners do not reveal that the land in question is mentioned in Exhs.P1 to P7 i,e,, Jamabandis of the years 1951-52, 1956-57, 1959-60, 1963-64, 1978-79, 1983-84 and 1989-90. He stated that the land mentioned in the aforesaid documents remained intact till date as the land in question is not part of the land mentioned in the aforesaid documents. He further stated that this Khasra was never part of the aforesaid record whereas the respondents have proved on record that the land in question was obtained by the respondents during the consolidation proceedings. He further stated that the petitioners did not challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner before any higher forum. He further stated that the Jamabandis of the years 1989-90 Exh.D.l Daily Rozenamcha, dated 7-6-1992 Exh.D-2, application for ejectment D.3, reply of ejectment application D.4, proceedings of commission D.5, report of Commission D.6 and encroachment map Exh.D.7. All these documents show that respondents are owners of the property in question.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. The relevant columns of Exh.P.1 to P.7 are reproduced hereunder: {{URDU TEXT}} ExH,P/7 foR /989-90 {{URDU TEXT}} ' The aforesaid documents clearly show that it was part of the Abadi but was Ghair Mumkan Abadi.
It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid documents do not contain Khasra No,319 whereas Exh.D-1 reveals as under:--- {{URDU TEXT}} ' Learned First Appellate Court after proper appreciation of evidence reversed the finding on Issue No,5. As regards, the finding of the learned Additional District Judge on Issue No,5, it may be noticed that in his capacity as Appellate Court, learned Additional District Judge possessed the jurisdiction to come to his own conclusion, on the basis of evidence adduced before the trial Court by the parties and resultantly, he could competently reverse the findings of the trial Court on the questions of fact involved in Issue No,5. It is established proposition of law that findings of question of fact or of law howsoever erroneous the same may be, recorded by Court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be interfered with by the High Court, in exercise of its revilional jurisdiction, under section 115, C.P.C., unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect illegality or material irregularity. I am fortified by the judgment of the Privy Council in Venkatagiri Ayyangar's case PLD 1949 PC 26 with reference to section 115, C.P.C. The relevant observation is as follows:--- "This section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters--
(a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction;
(b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and
(c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however, profoundly. From the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
It is also settled proposition of law that the plaintiff can succeed on the strength of his own case and not upon any alleged weakness in defence of his adversary unless he could prove to the satisfaction of the Court that what is the stated was truth, he could not be given relief. On the basis of evidence on record the report of the Commissioner and the finding .Of the First Appellate Court are that the petitioners are encroacher. Therefore, petitioners have no right to remain in possession. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anjuman Araian's case PLD 1982 SC 308 and the relevant observation is as follows:-- "It was observed that the petitioners had no right or title to remain on the property and, therefore, could not be allowed to perpetuate their unlawful possession. Thus, a trespasser has never been held to be a person, who is entitled to successfully invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, as he lacks the locus standi to do so."
It is also settled proposition of law that the discretion of Court neither in case of declaration nor in suit of specific performance could be exercised in favour of a party which obtained the possession unlawfully in order to deprive others of their valuable property and try to cheat the Court. Therefore, cannot be better example that the case in hand where the petitioners-plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands. I am fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Aziz's case 1994 SCM R 111.
In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no force and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.