This Civil Revision Petition under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 5-5-1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge-II, Quetta was dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the respondents/defendants on 13-3-1996 with the averments that respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 4 and 5 to 7 were co-sharer in the property bearing Khasra Nos.1765/1738 and 1544 in Mahal Mouza Pachi Karez Zindra Tappa Kawas Tehsil and District, Ziarat and in the year, 1980 the respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 4 relinquished their right in the above property through sale-deed/agreement, whereby it was agreed that father of the respondent/defendent No,5 and respondents/defendants Nos.6 and 7 have spent huge amount over the property and they were not in a position to clear their share, hence they sold/surrendered their right over the above property. It is further averred that in the year, 1983 the petitioner/plaintiff purchased the above referred property from father of respondent/defendant No,5 and respondents/defendants Nos.6 and 7 for a sale consideration of Rs,98,000 whereafter, the possession was also delivered to the petitioner/plaintiff and mutation entry No,133 at serial No,187 was effected. It is stated that the parties were identified before respondent/defendant No, 8 by Malik Muhammad Hassan son of Khan Muhammad a notable of the area and mutation was recorded by respondent/defendant No,9. It is further contended that since the purchase of the above property the petitioner/plaintiff remained in peaceful cultivating possession of the same without any objection. However, on 23-7-1995, the respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 4 moved an application for demarcation of the abovementioned property before the Tehsildar, Ziarat which was strongly contested by the petitioner/plaintiff on the pretext that the petitioner/plaintiff is the owner of the above property with lawful possession. It is stated that at the time of mutation the petitioner/plaintiff was provided photo copy. It is alleged that while contesting the application for demarcation moved by respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 4, the petitioner/plaintiff applied for certified copy of mutation which was not provided to the petitioner/plaintiff and at that time it revealed that mutation has been removed from the concerned register of the Revenue Record with mala fide intention. It is stated that the petitioner/plaintiff then moved application before Deputy Commissioner, Ziarat for enquiry. It is alleged that the First Inquiry Officer Ex-Assistant Commissioner, Ziarat without proper enquiry recommended to Deputy Commissioner, Ziarat for registration of criminal case under section 403/420, P.P.C. Against the petitioner/plaintiff. It is alleged that against this one sided enquiry the petitioner/plaintiff moved an application to Deputy Commissioner, Ziarat for re-enquiry which was accepted and enquiry was ordered but from the conduct of respondent/defendant No,10 it appeared that he will make the same recommendation as done by his predecessor. It is stated that the Revenue Record is under control of respondent/defendant No,10 and all his revenue staff is his subordinate, therefore, there was no alternative for the petitioner/plaintiff except to file civil suit. On the basis of above averments the suit was filed with the following prayers:-
(a) declaring that property entering into Khasra Nos.1765, 1738 and 1544 situated in Mahal Pachi Karez Mouza Zindra, Tappa Kawas Tehsil and District Ziarat has lawfully been purchased by the plaintiff from defendants Nos.5 to 7 and have rightly been entered in the Revenue Record at serial No,187 Inteqal No,133;
(b) declaration may also be made defendants Nos.1 to 4 have no legal right or entitlethent in the property mentioned above as they have relinquished their right on 3-3-1980 in view of sale- deed/agreement in favour of father of defendant No,5 and defendants Nos.6 and 7, therefore, they cannot claim for demarcation of the said property;
(c) declaration may also be made to the effect that defendant,No,10 is not authorised and claim any right to interfere in the proprietory right of the plaintiff by way of making enquiry;
(d) by way of passing injunction defendant No,10 be restrained permanently from making enquiry regarding above said property;
(e) by way of passing mandatory injunction defendant No,10/Revenue Officer may be directed to enter the above said property in the records of right on the name of the plaintiff as lawful purchaser;
(f) any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be awarded;
(g) costs of the suit may also be awarded.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondents/defendants Nos. 1 to 4 by filing written statement and raised legal as well as factual grounds. It was stated that no transaction has ever taken place between the father of respondents Nos.5 to 7 nor the possession of the suit property has ever been delivered to the petitioner/plaintiff, rather the respondents/defendants Nos. 5 to 7 in collusion with petitioner/plaintiff have instituted a suit to grab the property of respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 4.
It is further alleged that respondent/defendant No,8 with collusion has entered the property in dispute in the name of petitioner/plaintiff by forging mutation entry which is not present on record and it was further alleged that petitioner/plaintiff has filed misconceived and baseless suit to save himself from the clutches of law. The respondents/defendants Nos.5 to 7 filed their written statement conceding to the contents of the plaint and prayed to decree the suit. The official respondents Nos.8 to 10 were declared ex parte on 24-7-1996.
4. Out of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(i) Whether suit is not maintainable in view of P.Os. "A" to "F" of written statement filed by defendants Nos.1 to 4?
(ii) Whether plaintiff has purchased the property in dispute from father of defendants Nos.5, 6 and 7 for a consideration of Rs,98,000 with possession?
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed?
(iv) Relief?
5. In support of his case petitioner/plaintiff produced P.W.1 Haji Rahim Dad son of Muhammad Noor, P.W.2 Haji Muhammad Ghaus son of Khan Muhammad, P.W.3 Muhammad Hassan son of Khan Muhammad and petitioner/plaintiff got recorded his own statement. On the other hand respondents/defendants Nos.1 to .4 examined D.W.1 Malik Abdul Hakeem son of Malik Abdul Ghafoor, D.W.2 Malik Muhammad Noor son of Malik Muhammad Amin, D.W.3 Ameer Muhammad son of Haji Muhammad Gul, D.W.4 Noor Ahmed son of Muhammad Usman Patwari who has produced Exh.D./1, D.W.5 Muhammad Azam son of Muhammad Aslam Qanungo who has produced Exh.D/2 and respondent No,1 Naseebullah got recorded his statement for himself and as attorney for respondents Nos. 2 to 4 while respondent Gul Shah recorded his statement for himself and as attorney for respondents/defendants Nos.5 and 7. The learned trial Court on the assessment of evidence brought on record dismissed the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff on 5-5-1998. Aggrieved by the above judgment and decree the petitioner/plaintiff preferred an appeal before District Judge, Quetta which was transferred to the Court of learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta.
6. The learned Additional District Judge-I, Quetta after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examining the record came to the conclusions that the trial Court had framed issues properly and have been dealt with elaborately, the agreement (Exh.D/6-II) was not a registered one and not indicating the details regarding date, name and place, petitioner/plaintiff miserably failed to substantiate his right on the property in question and did not find any illegality and material irregularity in the judgment of the trial Court, therefore, the same was upheld and the appeal was accordingly dismissed. Hence this revision petition under section 115, C .P.C.
7. I have heard Mr. Naeem Akhtar, Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jehanzab Jadoon, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.1 to 4. Respondent No,10 has not contested while respondents Nos.5 to 9 were proceeded ex parte on 14-5-1999.
8. Admittedly in revision only the legal points are to be discussed and not the factual aspect. The factual side is already decided by the trial Court A as well as by the appellate Court and there are concurrent findings by both the Courts below.The grounds agitated before this Court are almost the same which were argued before the Appellate Court. No legal flaw has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The objection of the learned counsel regarding framing of issues by the learned trial Court has been dealt with by the Appellate Court. According to Appellate Court Issue No,2 covers the pleading of the plaintiff and Issue No,1 covers the written statement and the trial Court has framed issues properly and have dealt with elaborately. It has also been observed that even otherwise, the plaintiff has not filed any application for additional issue to the trial Court during the trial. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the authority reported in 1997 CLC 875, wherein it has been held that trial Court can also give decision on maintainability of suit even without framing such issue. Learned counsel has not been able to point out as to what should have been the correct issue which has not been framed by the trial Court and has prejudiced the petitioner. The authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 1994 CLC 2208 is not attracted in the circumstances of present case. In PLD 1999 Peshawar 57 it has been held that "an erroneous conclusion of law or fact can be corrected in the appeal but it cannot be granted in the revision petition. In revision interference by the higher Courts is to be limited, to correct the error of jurisdiction or non-compliance of any statutory provisions of law. The revisional Court, therefore, is not bound to interfere with the merits of the case".
9. There is also no force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Appellate Court did not comply with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 31 which can warrant interference by this Court. The Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court and has dealt with the issues and evidence which were necessary for the disposal of appeal. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment nor he could show any misreading of relevant evidence or overlooking of any important evidence. It is pertinent to note that enquiry was initiated on the application of petitioner/plaintiff and as a result of such enquiry recommendation was made for registration of case under sections 403 and 420, P.P.C.
Against the petitioner/plaintiff. It is stated that the petitioner again approached the Deputy Commissioner for conducting re-enquiry in the matter which request was accepted and enquiry was ordered. Nothing has been brought on record which can indicate that either he made an application for transfer of matter to another Inquiry Officer or adopted any other usual mode of proceedings. Under section 56 of the Specific Relief Act no injunction can be issued against the Government or to interfere with public duties of any department or to stay proceedings in any criminal matter. Similarly no injunction can be granted when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceedings.
11. There is a concurrent finding of fact wherein evidence has been evaluated by both the forums below. Ownership of the disputed property is obviously question of fact determinable on thorough analysis of evidence led by parties. Therefore, the scope of revisional jurisdiction would be limited and interference is not justified unless patent illegality, want of jurisdiction, misexercise of authority or material irregularity can be disclosed. The concurrent findings of facts arrived at by Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as in revision finding of fact cannot be looked into except the glaring illegality if any which has not been pointed out nor the approach of the Courts below to the evidence is perverse. Reliance is also placed on the authority reported in 1997 SCMR 1139.
12. In view of above discussion the petition has no force which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.