' Facts necessary for the disposal of this civil revision are that a suit for possession of an Ahata measuring 5 Marlas was filed by the petitioner against the respondents claiming that it was allotted to him under the five Marlas Scheme and the respondents had unlawfully occupied the same about one month prior to the institution of the suit. The suit was contested by the respondents. After framing issues and recording evidence, it was decreed by Civil Judge, Layyah on 8-1-1986. On appeal by the respondents, the said decree was set aside by the learned Additional District Judge, Layyah vide judgment dated 28-3-1990, resultantly petitioner's suit was dismissed.
2. The petitioner has filed this civil revision against the aforesaid decree of the Additional District Judge.
3. While assailing the same learned counsel for the petitioner argued as follows:-- i) The Appellate Court had without any cogent reason discarded copy of register of allotment Exh.P.1, wherefrom it was established that Ahata was allotted to the petitioner. Ii) Proper issues were not framed. Iii) Judgment of the Appellate Court suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence, and iv) The learned Appellate Court allowed the respondents at the appellate stage to produce additional evidence without permitting the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal thereto and thereby acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.
4. Revision petition is opposed by the learned counsel for respondents No,1 to 5. Arguments heard.
Revision petition and annexures appended therewith perused.
5. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that in para No,4, the learned Appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence led by the parties and after reappraising the same has given plausible reasons for disagreeing with the finding of the learned trial Court on Issue No, 1 .
6 . Case of the petitioner was that the disputed land was allotted to him under five Marlas Scheme and the respondents had illegally occupied the same. It was not alleged in the plaint that under the allotment order, possession of the land was also delivered to him. He could not produce any order of allotment of that land in his favour.
' Exh.P.1, produced by him in support of his claim did not contain any description and location of the land so allotted. This document is not even copy of register of allotment as was alleged by the petitioner; caption of the said document shows that it is copy of register relating to entries of applications for allotment of Ahata for residential purpose. Neither any copy of allotment order nor any certificate showing ellotment was produced by the petitioner to show that the disputed Ahata A was allotted to him. His oral evidence regarding allotment was not supported by any document.
During cross-examination his witness P.W.1, Muhammad Hussain Patwari of the concerned Halqa admitted that according to record land which is allegedly allotted to the petitioner forms part of the Abadi Deh which is not State land; the said witness also stated that the disputed land cannot be identified at the spot because there is neither any mutation nor any record of delivery of possession of the alleged allotted land.
7. It is settled law that in order to succeed, plaintiff has to stand on his own legs; it is for him to prove his case. Since neither any order of allotment nor that of delivery of possession under the alleged allotment was produced by the petitioner hence finding of the learned Appellate Court that petitioner had failed to prove his case is unexceptionable.
8. All other issues were decided against the respondents by the learned trial Court and the said findings were maintained by the Appellate Court, therefore, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner by the findings on the other issues.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner could neither point out as to which issue was not properly framed nor he could draw my attention to any material portion of evidence which was overlooked or misread by the Appellate Court. Neither there appears to be any misreading of evidence nor does any material piece of evidence appear to have been overlooked by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal.
10. Adverting to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Appellate Court acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in accepting the respondent's application for producing additional evidence at the appellate stage without allowing the petitioner to produce evidence in rebuttal to the aforesaid additional evidence, it may be observed that neither copy of the aforesaid order or any other order of the learned Appellate Court was annexed with the civil revision nor has been placed on record at any subsequent stage to show that right of rebuttal was refused to the petitioner. On the bald assertion of the petitioner's counsel I am not inclined to believe that right of rebuttal was refused by the Appellate Court.
11. Provisional jurisdiction is directed against irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against conclusions of fact or law not involving question of jurisdiction. There is no jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court which is assailed in this civil revision. Being devoid of any merit, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.