' Both the civil revisions arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge dated 25-6-1996 dismissing the suit filed by Rana Hakim Ali respondent. Appeal filed by him was accepted vide order, dated 14-5-1997 by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, therefore, both the civil revisions are being disposed of by a consolidated judgment.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Hakim Ali respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was residing in the Plot No,343/2/S.C. Of Ghulam Muhammad Abad Colony, Faisalabad for the last 18 years having constructed the house and entitled to its allotment/regularization in his name by the Deputy Director/Secretary, Housing Committee, Faisalabad with consequential relief, respondents Nos.1 and 2 be restrained from allotting the said plot to anyone else except him and he be allowed possession of the aforesaid plot and respondent No,3 the present petitioner be ejected allegedly is unauthorized and illegal occupant of the plot by removing the wall between the Plots Nos.344-C and 343/2/S.C., further claiming Rs,200 per month as rent of the house for use of occupation.
3. The petitioner who was defendant in the suit filed a separate written statement controverting the averment of the plaint and also asserting that a dispute between the plaintiff (respondent No,3) and one Talib Hussain was going on under the direction of Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and an inquiry was held by the City Magistrate, who held that Plot No,344-A situated in Block- Commission, Ghulam Muhammad Abad Colony, Faisalabad was not included in the site plan and the Department has described it to be Plot No,343/S and also recommended for its allotment to Talib Hussain. It is further averred that after the approval of the Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning, for the creation of the new number matter will be placed before the District Housing Society for allotment and in view of the inquiry report Deputy Commissioner vide his order, dated 27-1-1990 has directed to allot the plot in question to Talib Hussain.
4. Ghulam Rasul who was defendant No,3 in the suit also controverted the contents of the plaint by filing a separate written statement and raised various preliminary objections as well as also asserted that Talib Hussain is the allottee of plot and he is using the same.
5. From the divergent pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:--
(1) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD
(2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD
(4) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct from bringing the present suit? OPD
(5) Whether the plaintiff had been in possession of the suit plot and is entitled to its allotment- regularization in his name? OPP
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation fqr use and occupation of the said plot by defendant No,3? OPP
(7) Relief.
6. After recording the evidence the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit of the respondent-Hakim Ali by recording the finding on issue No,5 against him. The learned Civil Judge held that: "In these circumstances I am of the view that there was no plot in possession of the plaintiff nor any Plot No,343/2/S.0 is in existence on the spot. As there is no plot in existence, therefore, the question of plaintiffs being in its possession and its allotment or regularization in his name does not arise.
Moreover, the plaintiff can be held entitled to regularization or allotment of any plot if he has been found in its physical possession. When the plaintiff is not in possession of any plot and it is admitted by the plaintiff in his plaint then how the plaintiff claims to be entitled to allotment or regularization of plot. So, the plaintiff has failed to prove this issue and the same is decided against him."
7. Appeal filed by Hakim Ali was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge while reversing the finding on Issue No,9 vide his judgment and decree dated 14-5-1997. The learned Additional District Judge on the basis of possession slip Mark-B produced by the respondent Hakim Ali and possession slip Exh.D.1 produced by the petitioner regarding Plot No,344-A in the name of Talib Hussain observed that: "From the slips it becomes clear that Plot No,344-A and Plot No,343/2/S.C. Are different plots and are no concern whatsoever with each other. The respondent No,3 is in possession of Plot No,344-A and the appellant is not claiming the possession over Plot No,344-A, therefore, I am convinced that the respondent No,3 should have no objection for the allotment in possession or the appellant over Plot No,343/2/S.C. "
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court is result of complete misreading and non-reading of evidence. Further that the Appellate Court has violated the provision of Order 20, rule 5 of the C.P.C. By not recording the separate finding on each issue and that the learned First Appellate Court while reversing the finding of fact recorded by the learned Civil Judge has not taken into consideration the reasoning given by him dismissing the suit.
9. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents contends that the Civil Judge has recorded a finding of fact which was not based on evidence, therefore, the same has been correctly reversed by the learned First Appellate Court by appreciating the evidence on the record and further that it is not always necessary for the Court to record a separate finding on each issue.
10. Since in this case decision of the two Courts below is controversial on the question of fact or disputed question of fact, therefore, on the basis of case reported as 2001 SCM R 1493. I myself has gone through the evidence produced by the parties and come to the conclusion that the learned Additional District Judge fell in error while recording a finding that Plot No,343/2/S.C. Is in existence and there is a right of the respondent Hakim Ali in the abovestated plot for allotment and regularization. The real dispute between the parties is not that Plot No,344-A of Talib Hussain in possession of Ghulam Rawl petitioner, Plot No,344-A in fact has no nexus with Plot No,343/2/S.C.
Point for determination is that whether plot claimed by Hakim Ali plaintiff-respondent as 343/2/S.0 was is existence and that the respondent Hakim Ali was entitled for its transfer and the regularization. The Government of the Punjab filed a Civil Revision No,1428 and in ground (d) has admitted that Plot No,342/2/S.C. Does not exist at the spot at all as discussed by the leaned Civil Judge under Issue No,5. To resolve the controversy there are different documents on the record.
The Survey Register (Exh.D.4) shows that Plot No,343/2 was transferred to Muhammad Iqbal and 344-A is in possession of Talib Hussain regarding which there is no dispute. There is no Plot No,343/2/S.C. In the Survey Register (Exh.D.4). Similarly, plan of Block-C for Ghulam Muhammad Colony, Faisalabad (Exh.D.5) shows Plot No,344-A/C on its two sides, there are roads and on the north side Plot No,344-C and on the south side Plot No,343-C. No plot is in existence as claimed by respondent Hakim Ali bearing No,343/2/S.C. According to the document Exh.D. I Plot No,344-A which has been shown in the Survey Register and the plot is in possession of Talib Hussain. The learned Additional District Judge relied only on possession slip Mark-B and observed that there is a Plot No,343/2/S.C. The suit seeking declaration has been filed by Hakim Ali. He claimed that he had been residing in Plot Na.343/2/S.C. For the last 18 years and he has constructed the same and therefore, he is entitled to its allotment-regularization. There is neither any site plan submitted to the Secretary, Housing Committee (defendant No,2) by Hakim Ali nor there is any receipt showing that the tax has been paid by Hakim Ali nor there is any utility bills of electricity or Sui Gas connection. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional District Judge fell in error while giving a finding that Plot No,343/2/S.C. Is in existence and Hakim Ali is entitled for the allotment and regularization of the Plot No,343/2/S.C. It was obligatory for the Hakim Ali to prove that in fact that plot was in existence in accordance with the scheme prepared by Housing and Physical Planning Department, Government of the Punjab, which he has failed to substantiate and prove on the record. The document Mark-B has not been proved in accordance with law and that why this is not exhibited under Order 13 Rule 4 of C.P.C., therefore, it could have not been read in evidence by the learned Additional District Judge. The statement of Abdul Ghafoor Malik, Magistrate, who has appeared as D.W.3, has confirmed the existence of the Plot No,342 owned by Talib Hussain by proving the record as Mark-B/D.W.
2. On the abovestated evidence it can be concluded that there is no plot bearing No,443/2/S.C. In existence claimed by respondent Hakith Ali.
11. There is yet another ground for refusing declaration to the respondent Hakim Ali if plot subsequently became available because the same is to be disposed of in accordance with the direction/Circular No,SO./B-11)/-(IV)-93 issued by the Government of the Punjab, Housing Physical and Environmental Planning Department, dated 25th of October, 1993, which reads as follows:-- "In suppression of all policy instructions on the subject noted above it has been decided by the Government that discretionary quotas and all quotas for special groups be discontinued/ abolished and all residential/commercial/industrial plots quarters/flats and constructed shops in all types of Housing Schemes developed/to be developed by Development Authorities( mprovement Trusts/II & PP Department may be disposed of through open auctionn This decision should, however, not be applicable to plots for public utilities which shall be disposed of as per existing policy."
12. By reading all the abovestated evidence on the record and discussion, I am of the firm view that the learned Additional District Judge, fell in error, and committed material illegality accepting the appeal of Hakim Ali by upsetting the well-reasoned judgment of the learned Civil judge dated 25- 6-1996.
13. Resultantly, this revision petition filed by the Province of the Punjab, is accepted. Judgment and decree dated 14-5-1997, of the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, is set aside and the judgment and decree dated 25-6-1996, of the learned Civil Judge, dismissing the suit of the respondent Hakim Ali, is restored with costs.