' This civil revision assails judgments and decrees dated 8-1-1994 and 21-3-2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, respectively, deciding lis concurrently against the petitioners.
' Precisely, relevant facts are that one Alawal alias Allo predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was allotted on 6-5-1942 Ahatas Nos.188 and 189 comprising 15 Marlas 2 Sarsahis, who after his allotment, claimed to have spent a huge amount on construction of house over Ahata No.188 and thereafter 'started living there. The allottee licensed Ahata No.189 measuring 7 Marlas, 7 Sarsahis for temporary use to the petitioners in the year 1980, but possession of this Ahata was not restituted as promised and ultimately, respondents filed the suit in hand, for possession of Ahata No.189 on the basis of their title, derived by them out of allotment in favour of their predecessor.
3. Petitioners being defendants in the suit, denied assertions in theplaint and pleaded that predecessors-in-interest of the parties had been jointly cultivating the land, out of whom Allo was an educated man, whereas predecessor of the petitioners was illiterate. Allo taking benefit of simplicity and ignorance of the predecessor of the petitioner got both the Ahatas allotted in his name whereas Ahata in possession of the petitioners was to be allotted in the name of their predecessor, as admitted by Allo in presence of Sonay Khan Lambardar and one Allah Yar their co- villager. Petitioners claimed that they have raised constructions over the Ahata in question out of their own expenses. Controversial pleadings of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned trial Judge, who was seized of the matter, after doing the needful, on the basis of his appraisal of evidence, vide his judgment and decree dated 8-1-1994 decreed the suit of the respondents.
4. Petitioners aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court. Dated 8-1-1994 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, but remained unsuccessful as it was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21-3-2000. Thereafter they filed instant revision petition, which was admitted to regular hearing and after completion of service of the respondents, has been laid for final determination. The respondents are represented through their counsel.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that earlier Allo filed a suit against the Province of Punjab, wherein the petitioners were impleaded as party whereafter their suit was dismissed and appeal of Allo failed and in view of this dismissal second suit of the respondents was not only barred under the provisions of Order II, rule 2, C.P.C., but the same was also not maintainable in view of section 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment in the case of Mst. Sarwat Ara and 3 others v. Mst. Sabra Khatoon (1993 CLC 1682). He further submitted that the respondents suit was one on the basis of title under section 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, but the Ahata in question still continues to be owned by the Provincial Government and has not been transferred in the name of the respondents, thus their suit was not maintainable.
It was further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Appellate Court has not dealt with each issue framed by the trial Court and has remarked, without discussing the evidence, that trial Court has fully discussed the evidence and erroneously dismissed the appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the arguments of the petitioners, supported the concurrent judgments and decrees of the two Courts below and urged that both the suits one filed by Allo and the other by the respondents proceeded on altogether different causes of action and thus neither the provisions of section 11, C.P.C. Or those contained in Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. Were attracted in the case in hand and their suit on the basis of those could not have been dismissed.
He further contended that earlier suit which was filed against the Provincial Government for conferment of proprietary rights was dismissed on 26-5-1987 under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. On account of lack of proof, whereas the second suit was filed on 8-6-1991 on the basis of title derived by them out of Mutation No.370 dated 10-10-1944. He further submitted that suit of the respondents was based on title which is supported by documentary evidence on the file, in form of mutation and Jamabandi for the year 1953-54.
7. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Copy of the plaint filed by Allo predecessor-in- interest of the respondents was produced as Exh.D.2. This suit was filed for declaration to the effect that plaintiff (Allo) was entitled to continue in possession of residential sites/houses No.188-189 measuring 14 Marlas, 7 Sarsahis and thus he had a right to acquire proprietary rights. This suit was dismissed on 26-10-1987, as he could not produce his evidence and was proceeded against under Order, XVII, rule 3, C.P.C. Suit in hand was filed for possession against the petitioners basing title to Ahatas No.188-189 through allotment dated 6-5-1942 with the averments that their predecessor had allowed the petitioners to reside therein, but on account of revocation of licence the possession was sought to be restituted. Cause of action in both the suits is altogether different. The basis on which the subsequent suit was filed, was not available to the respondents at the time of institution of the earlier suit. In other words dispute of permissive possession of the petitioners was neither raised nor was resolved in Allo's suit on the basis of which provisions of section 11 and Order II, rule 2, C.P.C. Were sought to be applied. From examination of both the plaints, I am of the considered view that none of these provisions is applicable and the judgments relied by'the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no help to their case.
8. Respondents produced copy of mutation dated 10-10-1944 as Exh.P.3, whereby Ahatas No.188 and 189 measuring 7 Marlas, 7 Sarsahis and 7 Marlas, 4 Sarsahis, respectively, were allotted in the name of Allo. They have also produced a copy of Jamabandi for the year 1953-54 (Exh.P.6) which also carries similar entries, as to those entered in Exh.P.3 and there is no rebuttal of this documentary evidence. From the petitioners side. P.W.1 Muhammad Ishaq, Junior Clerk Colony, Deputy Commissioner Office, Faisalabad, appeared in the witness-box and substantiated claim of the respondents by deposing that allotment of two Ahatas was made in favour of Allo through an order dated 6-5-1942, copy of which was produced as Exh.P.1. He further proved that allotment order was implemented on 29-8-1944 through Exh.P.2. P.W.1 Muhammad Hussain Patwari proved copies of Jamabadis produced as Exh.P.4 to Exh.P.14, wherein respondents are recorded as owners, constantly. The other witnesses i.e. P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 materially supported the case of respondents. Petitioners though produced a few witnesses to show that Ahata in question is in their possession, but this evidence in absence of any document is not of much help to their case. My view is that statements of these witnesses, regarding possession of the petitioners over the Ahata in question, go to lend support to the case of the respondent, whereunder they had pleaded that their predecessor licensed the petitioners to reside in the Ahata owned by him.
9. For what has been discussed above and the scan of evidence, I am of the considered view that both the Courts below have rightly concluded the dispute between the parties by concurrently holding that Ahata in possession of the petitioners was allotted to Alto, predecessor of the respondents, who licensed it for temporary residence to the petitioners. No legal defect or flaw as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners was found to have foundation. Judgments and decrees of.
10. Both the Courts below are in consonance with the evidence on the file and they have also not committed any illegality or irregularity. This revision petition has no substance in it and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.