-S. 115 & O.XXI R. 23-A--Dismissal of objection petition--Concurrent findings--Suit filed by petitioner was decreed subject to payment of market value--Assessment of plot--Issuance of letter regarding deposit of interim cost of plot--

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 248

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)--

----S. 115 & O.XXI R. 23-A--Dismissal of objection petition--Concurrent findings--Suit filed by petitioner was decreed subject to payment of market value--Assessment of plot--Issuance of letter regarding deposit of interim cost of plot--Nature of plot was commercial in nature--Report of price assessment committee--Challenge to--Exceptions of law--Revisional jurisdictional--Suit was decreed subject to payment of its market value and it has nowhere been shown by petitioner that market value of plot in question has not been assessed by respondent-LDA in accordance with law--Concurrent findings of Courts below cannot be interfered with in routine, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC, unless there is any jurisdictional defect, material irregularity or gross illegality occurred therein counsel for petitioner has failed to bring his case within four corners of said exceptions of law, which are sine qua non for exercising revisional jurisdiction--Revision petition dismissed.  [Pp. 250 & 251] A, B & C

Rana Rashid Akram Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali Khan, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Respondent-LDA.

Date of hearing: 8.9.2021.

 PLJ 2022 Lahore 248
Present: Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J.
MUHAMMAD SAIF ULLAH--Petitioner
versus
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through D.G. and others--Respondents
C.R. No. 211935 of 2018, decided on 8.9.2021.

Order

Through instant revision petition, petitioner has assailed judgments dated 01.02.2011 & 14.04.2018, passed by learned Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Lahore, respectively, whereby petitioner's objection petition was concurrently dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that during execution proceedings, petitioner filed objection petition on the ground that respondent-LDA/judgment-debtor mala fidely issued letter dated 31.10.2007 along with challan form in respect of interim cost of Plot No. 147, Nishter Block, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore, measuring 07-Marlas 60-Sq. ft., assessing average market price of Rs. 1,58,46,160/- at the rate of
Rs. 21,78,000/- per Marla; that said challan is not assessed according to average market price; and that the report of price assessment committee and aforesaid challan are forged and collusive, thus, liable to be cancelled. Respondents contested the objection petition by filing written reply. Learned Executing Court, after framing issues, recording evidence and hearing arguments of both sides, proceeded to dismiss the objection petition vide judgment dated 01.02.2011. Petitioner challenged aforesaid order by way of filing appeal before learned Appellate Court, which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 14.04.2018. Hence, this revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the market price of the plot in question has to be assessed on the basis of value of property in the year 2003, but the needful has not been done, therefore, higher price is being demanded which is against the direction contained in decree dated 27.09.2003. In the end, he submits that impugned judgments are unsustainable in the eye of law. In support, he referred to order dated 20.04.2005, passed by this Court in C.R. No. 2289 of 2004, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 15.03.2007.

4. Conversely, learned Legal Advisor for respondent-LDA defends the impugned decisions by contending that the Price Assessment Committee, LDA has rightly assessed the average market price as per the decree passed by learned Trial Court, therefore, instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Arguments heard. Available record perused.

6. Perusal of record shows that petitioner while appearing as AW-1 has admitted that suit plot is commercial in nature and there is a 30-feet wide road in front of the suit plot. The suit was decreed subject to the payment of its market value and it has nowhere been shown by the petitioner that market value of the plot in question has not been assessed by the respondent-LDA in accordance with law.' Learned Appellate Court, after appreciating the entire record, has rightly observed as under:

"10. The above-referred depositions of AW1 reveal that the disputed plot is commercial in nature. Perusal of judgment and decree dated 27.09.2003 reveals that appellant/decree holder claimed allotment of suit plot on the basis of his long standing possession. He always shown his readiness to pay the market rate of the suit plot to the LDA. In that scenario, the suit was decreed subject to the payment of its market value. In order to support objection petition, the appellant produced one Ghulam Farid as AW-2 and Tariq Mehmood AW-3. Both AW-2 and
AW-3 are the residents of Nishtar Colony, Allama Iqbal Town, Lahore. They are not the experts regarding the assessment of market value of properties. AW-2 namely Ghulam Farid deposed that he is the owner of nearby Plot No. 149. The copy of auction letter of that plot in the name of previous owner has been produced as Ex.A4 whereby the said plot was auctioned on 13.09.1984 at the price of Rs. 36,000/- per marla. AW-2 also produced the copy of agreement to sell of said Plot No. 149 as Ex.A-6, whereby he allegedly purchased it in total consideration of Rs. 14,00,000/-. The said agreement was allegedly executed in the year 2001. Both of the above referred documents cannot be considered because the Ex.A4 pertains to the year 1984 and Ex.A6 is a private document. The value of property in the year 1984 cannot be compared with the value of property existing at the time of institution of present execution petition in the year 2006. So, evidence of AW2 is of

no help to the case of appellant. Similarly, evidence of AW3 is also of similar nature and the same cannot be safely relied upon."

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned decisions. Even otherwise, the concurrent findings of learned Courts below cannot be interfered with in routine, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, CPC, unless there is any jurisdictional defect, material irregularity or gross illegality occurred therein. Learned counsel for petitioner has failed to bring his case within the four corners of the said exceptions of law, which are sine qua non for exercising revisional jurisdiction. The case law relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner, being on distinguishable facts and circumstances, is not attracted to the present scenario.

8. In view of the above, instant petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed