The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the petitioners allotted a plot inquestion in favour of respondent on 25.4.1982. The possession slip was also issued by the petitioners to respondent on 2.4.1983. The petitioners sent National Identity Card of the respondent to the Registration Authority for verification. The Registration Authority found that the National Identity Card of respondent is fictitious and bogus. The petitioners canceled the plot of the respondent vide order dated 8.12.1996. The respondent being aggrieved filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction in the Court of Civil Judge 1st Class, Gujranwala, on 25.1.1997. The contents of the plaint reveal that the Plot No, 28-30/X-5 was allotted to respondent by the petitioners-defendants on the basis of an application dated 25.6.1981 vide letter dated 25.4.1982 and in pursuance of that allotment the possession slip dated 2.4.1983 was also secured by the respondent-plaintiff from the Petitioner-defendant No 2. The respondent constructed the house over the plot inquestion after obtaining possession from the petitioners-defendants. The contents of the plaint further reveal that after some years a person of District Sargodha having collusive with the petitioners-defendants submitted an application before Petitioner No, 1, who canceled the allotment of the plot inquestion and included the said plot in auction lease. The contents of the plaint further reveal that respondent-plaintiff produced a copy of the National Identity Card No, 286-51-472758 dated 28.4.1994 and Domicile Certificate No, 10839/14 dated 18.12.1993 before the petitioners-defendants but despite that they cancelled the allotment of the plot inquestion in the name of the respondent-plaintiff vide order dated 8.12.1996. The petitioners filed written statement, controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint and took a stand in the written statement that it has been established in the result of inquiry that the National Identity Card, which has been produced by the respondent-plaintiff for the allotment of the disputed plot was bogus and fake and the same had been issued in the name of some Ashiq Ali son of Abdul Sattar and as such the particulars and person of respondent-plaintiff had been found fictitious. The trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:-- (i)Whether the plaintiff lacks cause of action to file this suit? OPD (ii)Whether the suit is not maintainable and defendants are entitled to compensatory costs if so, to what extent? OPD (iii)Whether the cancellation of plot from plaintiff's name is against law and facts therefore, ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff? OPP (iv)Relief.
2. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 30.3.2002. The respondent being aggrieved preferred an appeal. before the learned Addl. District Judge, Gujranwala, who accepted the same vide judgment and decree dated 16.7.2003, hence, the present revision petition.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that judgments of both the Courts below are at variance. He further submits that First Appellate Court did not advert to the reasoning of the trial Court and reversed the findings of the trial Court, which is based on surmises and conjectures. He further submits that the First Appellate Court erred in law to arrive at a different conclusion on the basis of the evidence on the record qua Issue No, 3, which was material issue between the parties.
He further submits that respondent secured a plot by playing fraud with the petitioners, therefore, the trial Court was justified to dismiss the suit of the respondent-plaintiff whereas the First Appellate Court erred in law to accepted the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff.
4. I have given may anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of petitioners and perused the record.
5. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the basic facts in chronological order to resolve the controversy between the parties:--
(i) Respondent submitted the application for allotment of the plot inquestion on 25.6.1981; (ii)Petitioner No, 2 issued allotment letter to respondent-plaintiff on 25.4.1982; (iii)Petitioner No, 2 also issued possession slip to respondent-plaintiff on 2.4.1983; (iv)Respondent-plaintiff had paid all the dues to the petitioners; (v)The petitioners cancelled the plot inquestion from the name of the respondent-plaintiff vide letter dated 8.12.106. In case the aforesaid facts are put in juxta position then the principle of locus poenitentiae is attracted in all respects, therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified to reverse the findings of the trial Court, which is in consonance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Abdul Hameed's case (PLD 1969 S.C. 407). It is pertinent to mention here that there is no column in the application form to be filled by the respondent-plaintiff by mentioning the number of his National Identity Card, therefore, the trial Court erred in law to non-suit the respondent-plaintiff whereas the First Appellate Court was justified to reverse the findings of the trial Court as there is no condition precedent in the rules and regulations of the petitioners at the time of submitting the application by the respondent-plaintiff to mention the number of National. Identity Card in the application form. It is settled principle of law that public functionaries are duty bound to act in accordance with law as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution read with Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The action of the petitioners is in derogation of their own rules and regulations, therefore, the First Appellate Court was justified to accept the appeal of the respondent plaintiff, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Ali Mir's case (1984 SCM R 433). It is also settled principle of law that the First Appellate Court has a right to reappraisal the evidence on record and after reappraisal to come to a different conclusion as the law laid down by the Privy Council in "N.S. Vankatagiri Ayyangar and another vs. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board Madrass" (PLD 1949 P.C. 26). The judgment of the Privy Council was followed by this Court in "Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Lahore vs. Syed Khalid Mehmood". (NLR 1985 Civil 114). It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment of this Court was up-held by the Honourable Supreme Court. The Privy Council has laid down the following Principle in the cited judgment to interfere while exercising powers under Section 115 C.P.C.:-- "This is section empowers the High Court to satisfy itself upon three matters (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; (b) that the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction; and (c) that in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally, that is, in breach of some provision of law, or with maternal irregularity, that is, by committing some error or procedure in the course of the trial which is material in that it may have affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied upon those three matters, it has no power to interfere because it differs, however profoundly, from the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law."
The learned counsel of the petitioners failed to bring the case within the principle prescribed by Privy Council in the aforesaid judgment, therefore, I do not find any infirmity and illegality in the judgment of First Appellate Court. In view of what has been 'discussed above, this revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.