' Briefly stated the facts are that Property No,S-1-76-S-21 was allotted to Syed Yousaf Ali predecessor-in-interest of defendant/respondent No,5 Muhammad Sabir vide allotment order dated 30-9-1953 on the basis of his possessioin As a result of some administrative order, the number of property transferred to defendant/respondent No,5 was changed from S.1-76-S-21 to S- 1-114-S28(2). Later on Muhammad Sabir defendant/respondent No,5 alienated the property referred above to Mst. Maqsooda Begum defendant/respondent No,4 vide sale-deed dated 15-2- 1967 who alienated the same in favour of Muhammad Ashraf plaintiff/ petitioner vide sale-deed dated 24-2-1973, that similarly Mst. Inayat Bibi predecessor-in-interest of defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was allotted property No,S-1-114-S-28 by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 20-6-1966. Later on Mst. Inayat Bibi filed an ejectment petition against Muhammad Sabir who was occupying the said property as a tenant which was decided in her favour. The stand of the plaintiff/petitioner Muhammad Ashraf is that as he had purchased property from Muhammad Sabir and as he was not made a party in the ejectment petition, so the said order of ejectment is not binding on him. He thus filed a suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that he is owner in possession in his own right of Property No,S-1-114-S28(2) purchased vide sale-deed dated 24-2- 1973 and eviction order is not binding upon him. As a consequential relief he prayed that the defendants/respondents Nos. 1 to 3 be permanently restrained from interfering with his possession over said property.
2. The defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 contested the said suit contending that plaintiff/petitioner had purchased the property with defective title knowing fully that the person selling property had no title to pass on to him. They further asserted that they are rightful owners of the property in dispute and have obtained order of ejectment in accordance with law. They also contested the suit on various legal grounds and prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
3. . From the divergent pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff is owner in possession in his own right of Property No .S-1-114-S-28(2) purchased on the basis of sale-deed dated 24-2-1973? OPP
(2) Whether the impugned ejectment order is illegal, void, ineffective qua the plaintiffs right? OPP
(3) Whether the suit is frivolous and vexatious, if so, whether the defendants Nos.1 to 3 are entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C.P.C.? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD
(5) Whether the suit is not legally competent? OPD
(6) Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C.? OPD
(7) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
(8) Whether the plaintiff has come to the Court with unclean hands? OPD
(9) Whether the suit is hit by provisions of section 12(2), C.P.C.? OPD
(10) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of provisions of sections 22 and 25 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958.
(11) Whether the suit is hit by principle of res judicata? OPD
(12) Whether the suit is collusive to the extent of defendant No,5 and of the plaintiff? If so, to what effect? OPD
(13) Relief.
4. In support of his stand plaintiff/petitioner examined P.W.1 Kh. Aman Ullah P.W.2, Maqsood Farooqi P.W.3, Syed Muhammad Ayub P.W.4, Haji Muhammad Iqbal P.W.5, S. Yamin P.W.6, Abdul Rashid Patwari and recorded his own statement as P.W.7. He also brought on record documents Exh.P.1 to P.5. In rebuttal defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 examined Abdul Rashid D.W.1 and Imtiaz Ahmad Rathor D.W.2. They also brought on record documents Exh.D.1 to Exh.D.21 as well as judgment reported as (1974 SCM R 454) Mark-A and sale-deeds Exh.C.W.1/1-3 and thereafter closed their evidence.
5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff to the extent that ejectment order could not be pressed into service for seeking his ejectment. However his prayer to the extent that he be declared owner in possession of the suit property was dismissed. Both, the plaintiff/petitioner and defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 felt aggrieved of the judgment and decree-of the trial Court and filed two separate Appeals No,113 of 1988 and 114 of 1988. As both these appeals arose out of same judgment and decree so these have been disposed of by the single judgment whereby the appeal filed by plaintiff/petitioner has been dismissed and that of defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 has been accepted. The plaintiff/petitioner has felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore dated 20-12-1988 and filed the instant Civil Revision.
6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner has made three-fold submission. His first submission is that initially property bearing No,S-1-76-S-21 was allotted to Syed Yousaf Ali vide allotment dated 30-9-1953 and P.T.D. Was issued in his favour on 21-3-1960, that later on due to administrative reasons the suit property was given No, S-1-114-S28(2), that Muhammad Sabir defendant/respondent No,5 being successor-in-interest of original allottee Syed Yousaf Ali sold his share in favour of Mst. Maqsooda Begum defendant/respondent No,4 vide sale-deed dated 15-2- 1967 and which share was later on purchased by the present plaintiff/petitioner vide sale-deed dated 24-2-1973, that Mst. Inayat Bibi predecessorin-interest of defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 being owner of Property No,S-1-114-S-28 could not seek his ejectment from Property bearing No,S-1- 114-S-28(2) in the garb of ejectment order passed in respect of property bearing No,S-1-114-S-28.
' His second submission is that ejectment order could not be got executed qua him as he was in possession of the suit property in his independent capacity. His third submission is that finding on Issue No,4 returned by the Appellate Court is not in accordance with law and the suit was not time- barred.
8. The only point which requires determination is if plaintiff/petitioner had purchased any Property No,S-1-114-S-28(2) on the basis of sale-deed dated 24-2-1973. There is no doubt that Muhammad Ashraf plaintiff/petitioner purchased some property from Mst. Maqsooda Begum vide sale-deed dated 24-2-1973 who in turn had purchased the said property from Muhammad Sabir defendant/respondent No,5 vide sale-deed dated 15-2-1967. Muhammad Sabir defendant/respondent No,5 claims to have been allotted the said property by carving out the same out of Property No,S-1-76-S-21. According to the evidence brought on record Property No,S-1- 76-S-21 hereinafter to be described as property No,21 was transferred to Syed Yousaf Ali predecessor-in-interest of Muhammad Sabir defendant/respondent No,5. Similarly Property No,S- 1-114-S-28, hereinafter to be called as Property No,28 was allotted to Mst. Inayat Bibi predecessorin- interest of defendants/respondents Nos.1 to 3 by the Settlement Commissioner vide order dated 20-6-1966. There is nothing on the record to show if Property No, S-21 was even sub-divided or its number was changed from S-21 to Property No,28(2). No evidence to prove such assertion has been adduced by the plaintiff/petitioner Muhammad Ashraf. On the other nand he examined S. Yamin (P.W.5), Assistant of Excise and Taxation Department who brought record pertaining to Property No,S-1-114-S-28 and did not utter a single word to prove that any property with No,S-1-114- S-28(2) also existed. He also examined Abdul Rashid (P.W.6) who brought the record pertaining to Properties No,S-1-76-S-21 and No,S-1-114-S-28 and deposed that there was no record relating to Property No,28(2). This witness i,e, P.W.6 was also examined as D.W.1 by the defendants/ respondents Nos.1 to 3 and he categorically deposed that Property No,S-1-76-S-21 was never changed with S-1-114-28(2). It is thus proved that Property No, S-21 and S-28 are two different properties and none of said properties was given No,S-28(2) as asserted by the plaintiff/ petitioner.
It is thus proved that plaintiff/ petitioner was never in possession of any Property No,S-1-114-S-28(2) in his own right. It is also pertinent to point out that vide order dated 20-6-1966 Settlement Commissioner, Lahore ordered that house No,21 (i,e, S-1-76-S-21) shall stand transferred to Muhammad Sabir/ defendant/ respondent No,5 and house No,S-1-114-S-28 shall stand in the name of Mst. Inayat Bibi. The findings of the Courts below on said score are unexceptionable and are hereby maintained.
9. So far as second submission is concerned, suffice it to say that as there existed no property No,S- 28(2) and the plaintiff/petitioner is in possession of property transferred to Mst. Inayat Bibi, predecessor-in-interest of respondents Nos. 1 to 3, so the ejectment order is binding on him and there was no need to implead him a party. The findings on this issue rendered by the Appellate Court is maintained.
10. So far as the question regarding limitation is concerned, admittedly ejectment order was passed on 3-1-1974. The plaintiff/petitioner filed objection petition on 5-10-1974 which was rejected on 31-1-1975. According to Article 120 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff/petitioner had got a period of 6 years after the rejection of objection petition to file suit. Admittedly, the instant suit was filed on 2- 6-1981. Even if the period of six years is counted from the rejection of his objection petition on 31-1- 1975, he could file the instant suit by 30-1-1981.The suit having been filed on 2-6-1981 is patently time-barred.
11. The upshot of above discussion is that the Appellate Court has passed the impugned judgments and decrees in accordance with law. There is no force in this revision petition and the same is