CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.- The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner filed a suit for 'declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of the land measuring 41 kanals comprising Khasra No. 1352-Old and presently in Square No. 79, Qilla 4/2, 7, 27, Sq. No. 78, Qilla No. 27, Khewat No. 362, Khatuni No. 861-268, village Manawala, Tehsil and District Sheikhupura and he also sought the perpetual injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from interfering in possession. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 18.4.1990. The respondent being aggrieved filed appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura who accepted the same vide impugned judgment dated 24.9.1995, hence the present revision petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that the first Appellate Court was erred in law to reverse the findings of the Trial Court and the suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, was not barred by law. He further submits that the learned first Appellate Court reversed the findings on the question of bar of jurisdiction and in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:- Zameer Ahmad and 6 others v. Allah Data and 16 others (PLJ 1983 Lahore 230) Mst. Zubaida Bibi Vs. Mst. Hashmat Bibi and 2 others (1993 SCM R 1882) He further submits that on merits the learned first Appellate Court was erred in law to reverse the findings without adverting to the evidence on record. The Khasra No, 1352 was in possession of the petitioner and the land measuring 41 kanals was mentioned in the contents of the plaint. He further submits that petitioner filed an application for amendment of the suit before this Court through C.M. No. 1/C/1996. He further submits that amendment can be allowed at any stage as the character of the suit is not changed by this amendment. The learned counsel of the respondent submits that the decree of the first Appellate Court is in accordance with law. He further submits that first Appellate Court reversed the findings after appreciation of evidence on record. He further submits that the learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself.
4. The first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court qua the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the proceedings initiated under the provisions of the West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is expressly barred by Section 26 of the aforesaid Ordinance. The first Appellate Court rightly reversed the findings of the Trial Court in view of the aforesaid provisions of law. The judgment of the first Appellate Court is in accordance with law laid down by the superior Courts. I uphold the view of the first Appellate Court.
I am fortified by the following judgments:- Mst. Begum Jan and others Vs. Attique Ahmad, etc. (1979 CLC 426)
Syed Muhammad Sharif Shah Vs. Wall Muhammad, etc. (1989 SCM R 287)
Ahmad and others Vs. Karim Hussain and another (1986 P.Cr. Cases 662)
Karam Elahi Vs. Feroz Mining Limited Abbottabad (PLD 1990 Peshawar 174)
Bashir Ahmad and 13 others Vs. Mau,la Bakhsh and 24 others (1990 CLC 1241)
It is pertinent to mention here that the learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned first Appellate Court qua the bar of jurisdiction, therefore, revision petition is dismissed as per principle laid down by this Court in the case of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore Vs. Syed Khalid Mahmood (NLR 1985 Civil 114).
In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.