1. ' This revision application is directed against the concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing the suit as well as appeal filed by the applicants. The present revision application has been filed by the applicants by challenging the said orders.
2. ' The brief facts giving rise to the present revision application are that the applicants had purchased residential plot having the following boundaries through registered sale-deed No,86, dated 25-11-1947 from one Hindu Take Chand for consideration of Rs,1,500:-- Boundaries and measurement of suit plot ' In the East - Road 58 feet total area.
3. ' In the West - Garden 47 feet under purchase.
4. ' In the North - Well 50 feet by the applicant.
5. ' In the South - House of Mandra 64 feet 2,907 sq. Ft.
6. ' It is inter alia contended that the applicants were in possession of the suit plot in the year 1997 the defendants forcibly occupied the suit land and constructed Landhi and shops on the suit land. The applicants were constrained to file civil suit being Suit No,15 of 1997 which was instituted in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kandiaro on 25-1-1997 for declaration of their ownership, possession and permanent injunction. The respondents in response appeared and filed their written statement whereby it was denied the purchase and possession of the applicant as per boundaries mentioned in the suit and it was claimed that they have purchased 0-6-1/2 of the land out of Survey No,5.5A Deh Kandiaro from Muhammad Saleem Abbasi for Rs,5,000 on 23-10-1998 and by virtue of such title document they have constructed shops over it and they are in peaceful possession since their purchase.
7. ' Although the opponents moved an application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of plaint on the legal ground raised in the application as well as in the written statement.
8. ' The parties exchanged their documents by filing objection, consequently the trial Court after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties had rejected the plaint. The applicants being aggrieved with the said judgment preferred an appeal which was heard and decided by the learned Additional District Judge, Kandiaro by upholding the judgment of the trial Court. The present revision application has been filed against the said judgment.
9. ' It is contended by the learned counsel that the trial Court was supposed to record the evidence in order to determine the status of each party and by deciding the suit in haphazard manner and the right of the applicants have been denied in such manner. It is further contended that the orders of the two Courts below be set aside and the case be remanded to the trial Court for recording the evidence of the respective parties whether the opponents have illegally encroached upon the suit land of the applicants or the sale-deed produced by the opponents in the trial Court is proper.
10. ' Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Jatoi, learned counsel for the respondents has raised a legal plea that the suit land was purchased by the father of the appellants in the year 1947 from one Take Chand through registered sale-deed and the said document was liable to be confirmed by the Custodian Authority as contemplated under section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property)
11. Act but such confirmation was not obtained which transpires that the suit plot falls within the definition of (Evacuee Property) as provided under section 2(3) of the said Act. It is further urged by the learned counsel that in such circumstances the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by section 41 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case of Attaullah v. State through Custodian reported in PLD 1996 SC 234. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the sale-deed, dated 28-7-1996 registered with the Sub-Registrar was filed in the trial Court alongwith the written statement but the said sale-deed was not disputed by the applicants.
12. ' The trial Court has observed in the judgment, dated 15-5-2001 that prior to the Suit No,15 of 1997 the petitioners preferred a suit being Suit No,2 of 1997 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12-8- 2001 and no permission to file fresh suit was obtained.
13. 'I have examined the orders of the two Courts below and I am of the view that the sale-deed made on 25-11-1947 was subject to confirmation by the Custodian as provided under section 22 of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, therefore, the view taken by the two Courts below appears to be in accordance with law.
14. ' The learned counsel is unable to pin-point any material irregularity for setting aside the orders of the two Courts below. The findings of the two Courts below are maintained and the present revision application is dismissed.