' Through this R.S.A. The appellant questions the judgment dated 24-10-1978 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujrat, whereby he allowed the appeal of the respondents and reversed the judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Mandi Bahauddin, dated 19-2-1975.
2. The appellant filed a suit for possession of the suit land measuring 23 Kanals and 7 marlas, situate in village Ghunian, Tehsil Phalia, District Gujrat, alleging that through a Civil Court decree dated 28-2-1968 Raja deceased had sold the suit land to him for a consideration of Rs,10,000. It was further alleged that the said defendant sold some land including the suit land to Karam Din, defendant No,2 (presently respondent No,8), by means of mutation No,133 attested on 27-9-1968.
The defendants filed a written statement wherein it was averred that if any decree was proved, the same would be the result of fraud, as defendant No,1 did not appear in any Court and neither he made any statement nor authorized anyone to appear on his behalf. He denied the receipt of consideration and also the factum of any sale transaction. The learned Civil Judge framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner of the suit land on the basis of a decree dated 28-2-1968 awarded by the Civil Court Mandi Bahauddin?
(2) If issue No,1 is proved, whether mutation No,133 dated 27-9-1968 is illegal, void and liable to cancel to the extent of 23 Kanals, 7 Marlas as it is alleged in para.3 of the plaint?
(3) If issue No,1 is proved, whether the disputed decree dated 28-2-1968 is based upon fraud, void and liable to be cancelled, if so, its effect?
(4) Whether suit does not lie?
(5) Relief.
' The parties led their evidence. The learned Civil Judge. Decreed the suit. However, the appeal of the respondents succeeded and the decree of the learned trial Court was reversed.
3. Sh. Naveed Sheryar, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the learned Additional District Judge, while reversing the decree of the learned trial Court, did not refer to the evidence of the appellant comprising Ghulam Qadir (P.W.1), Muhammad Ali (P.W.2) and the appellant himself as P.W.3. According to the learned counsel, this is a material irregularity on the part of the first appellate Court. He further argued that the decree dated 28-2-1968 was not challenged by deceased defendant No,
1. Referring to Muhammad Ishaq v. Secretary to Government of Punjab 1982 SCM R 186' learned counsel maintained that the learned Additional District Judge did not record findings issue-wise.
4. Mr. Abdul Saleem, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge.
5. 1 have gone through the record with the help of the learned counsel for the parties. It would be advantageous to reproduced here the plea that was taken in the plaint:{{URDU TEXT}} ' Reply to this allegation has already been stated above. The wording of issue No,1 also leaves no manner of doubt as to what was the plea of the appellant.
6. It is amazing that none of the P.Ws. Including the appellant made even the slightest reference to the decree, dated 28-2-1968 (produced as Exh.P.2 on the file of the learned trial Court) or its proceedings. On the other hand, the evidence is to the effect as if the parties entered into an oral transaction in presence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 where the matter was settled and the amount of consideration paid. Understandably, the deceased defendant No,1 also remained content with denying the factum of sale in the course of his statement on oath as a witness.
7. It is trite law that evidence can be led only in accordance with the pleadings. I may refer with advantage to the case of Binyameen and 3 others v. Ch. Hakim and another 1996 SCM R 336 wherein Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar (as his Lordship then was), with reference to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of Pakistan (now Punjab) through Collector Bahawalpur v. Haji Muhammad PLD 1976 SC 469 observed that "It is also a well settled principle that no evidence can be . Led or looked into in support of a plea which has not been taken in the pleadings. A party is required to plead facts necessary to seek relief claimed and he would be entitled to produce evidence to prove those pleas. Variation in pleading and proof is not permissible in law". As observed earlier, there is nothing in the evidence of the appellant remotely concerned with the plea raised in the plaint and embodied in the issues. The learned Additional District Judge was, therefore, justified in ignoring the evidence of the P.Ws.
8. Coming to the second ground raised by the learned counsel that the decree was not challenged, suffice it to say that by virtue of Article 58 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 any party to a suit or other proceedings may show that any judgment, order or decree which is relevant under Articles 54, 55 or 56 and which has been proved by the adverse party was delivered by a Court not competent to deliver it, or was obtained by fraud or collusion. In view of the specific denial of the deceased defendant No,1 contained in the written statement and his averment that he had not authorized anyone to appear on his behalf in the suit in which the decree dated 28-2-1968 was passed, it became incumbent upon the appellant to prove that the person who allegedly appeared as Special Attorney of the deceased defendant No,1 in the proceedings conducted by the learned Civil Judge resulting in the decree (Exh.P.2) was so authorized. Learned counsel states that Ghulam Qadir (P.W.1) is the same person who is mentioned in the decree sheet (Exh.P.2). Even if it he so, nothing turns on his testimony as he has not even alleged that he was the person who was appointed special attorney or that he was authorized to appear in the course of the suit proceedings. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, correctly arrived at the conclusion that the said decree is not sustainable.
9. So far as the technical objection that the learned Additional District Judge did not record issue- wise finding is concerned, I find that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no relevance to his said objection. The learned Additional District Judge has given sufficient reasons for his conclusion and I am not inclined to hold that the judgment is violative of Order 41, Rule 31, C.P.C. Reference may be made to the case of Mst. Roshi and others v. Mst. Fateh and others 1982 SCM R 542. Besides, the judgment is maintainable on the grounds already stated by me in the earlier part of the judgment.
10. This R.S.A has no force and is dismissed with no order as to costs.