Facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that Abdul Karim petitioner had filed a suit for seeking declaration that Sale Mutation No.77 attested on 31-1-1969 in favour of respondent No. 1 is illegal, against facts, based on fraud and all the entries in the Revenue Record made inconsequence thereof since 1969 till date are liable to be cancelled. It was claimed that on the death of his father, Mutation No.76 regarding inheritance was attested in favour of legal heirs including the petitioner to the extent of their respective shares of inheritance. During the lifetime of his deceased father respondent No.1, used to look after and manage the land of his father; on the same day when the aforesaid Mutation of Inheritance No.76, was attested, respondent No. 1, in connivance and collusion with revenue field staff, fraudulently got the impugned mutation of sale attested in his favour by producing another person in place of the petitioner, It was asserted that respondent No.1, is in possession of the disputed land as his "Mustajar" and had been paying "Mustajari" due to which the petitioner could not know about the aforesaid fraud committed by the said respondent.
2. Alongwith the plaint a stay application was also moved for issuance of an interim injunction for restraining the said respondent from alienating the disputed land. It was opposed by respondent No. 1, and was accepted by Civil Judge, Multan on 27-7-2002. On appeal by respondent No.1, the said order was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide judgment dated 18- 2-2003.
3. In this civil revision, the petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order of the Additional District Judge, Multan.
4. Relying on the case of Ghulam Muhammad and others v. Muhammad Hanif and others reported in 2000 CLC 1255, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the learned Appellate Court had erred in giving presumption of truth to the impugned mutation in favour of respondent No.1.
Referring to Noor Fatima's case reported in 1990 SCM R 629 and Hakeem Khan v. Nazir Ahmad Luglimani and 10 others (1992 SCM R 1832). It was contended that mere mutation does not confer any right or title and person deriving title thereunder has to prove that the same was duly entered and attested.
5. Reliance was placed on Taj Din's case reported in PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 825 to urge that petitioner was illiterate hence onus lay on respondent No. 1, to prove beyond doubt that contents of the impugned mutation regarding sale, had been properly explained to the petitioner before he thumb---marked the same.
6. According to the learned counsel, the Appellate Court did not consider the salient aspects of the case; had set aside the order of the lower Court on extraneous grounds which were not pleaded by any of the parties; had failed to apply correct law governing the issuance of interim injunction and had thereby exercised jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Civil revision and its annexures perused.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that reasons for setting aside the impugned order and refusing injunction were that longstanding entries of more than 30 years in the Revenue Record in respect of the disputed land were in favour of respondent No. 1; petitioner had admitted in para. No.3-D of his plaint that the impugned mutation had been given effect to in the Revenue Record wherein respondent No. 1, is shown as owner and in possession of the disputed land and presumption of correctness is attached to long standing entries in the record of rights.
Nothing was produced before the learned Appellate Court or before the trial Court to show that disputed land was in possession or respondent No.1, as "Mustajar" of the petitioner. In the given situation it was rightly held by the learned Appellate Court that the petitioner neither possessed a prima facie case nor balance of convenience tilted in his favour.
9. In Ghulam Muhammad's case 2000 CLC 1255 the respondent of that case in the written statement had admitted 'possession of the petitioner; age of the donor at the time of execution of the alleged gift deed was about 100 years and the Courts below had assigned presumption of truth to the impugned mutation of gift.
10. In the present case, from the contents of the plaint, possession of respondent No.1. Was impliedly admitted as the impugned mutation was attested more than 30 years ago and had been given effect to in the Revenue Record presumption of truth was attached to long standing entries in Revenue Record including Jamabandis unless they were proved to be otherwise.
11. The learned Appellate Court had not held that the impugned mutation of sale had, the effect of conferring, right or title on respondent No. 1, neither it was observed by it that the said mutation has got -presumption of truth. Its observation regarding presumption of truth was in respect of longstanding entries in the Revenue Record which includes Jamabandis hence Noor Fatima's case 1990 SCM R 629 and Hakim Khan's case 1992 SCM R 1832 are note applicable.
12. Judgment in Taj Din's case PLD 1963 (W.P.) Karachi 825, on which reliance was placed, was passed in appeal and not in revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the said authority neither relates to the principles governing issuance of an interim injunction nor powers of High Court in revisional jurisdiction are analogous to those of an Appellate Court. Revisional jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, non---exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of law or fact not involving question of jurisdiction.
13. Contention of the petitioner's counsel that the Appellate Court did not consider salient feature of the case and had accepted the appeal on extraneous grounds is also misconceived inasmuch as in the plaint it was alleged that the impugned mutation had been given effect to in the Revenue Record since more than 30 years ago and long standing entries in the Revenue Record showing ownership and possession of respondent No.1, were prayed to be cancelled.
14. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that conclusions drawn that the petitioner did not possess a prima facie case and balance of convenience also did not tilt in his favour, are based on sound and plausible reasoning hence interference in revisional jurisdiction is not warranted against such conclusions:
15. Last submission of the learned counsel, that the Appellate Court had exercised' jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity is also misconceived inasmuch as the words "illegally and with material irregularity" have reference to material defects of procedure in the course of trial which may affect the ultimate decision. Breach of any provision of law or commission of any error of procedure by the Appellate Court could not be pointed out.
16. For the foregoing reasons, this civil revision being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed in limine.