--S. 42--Suit for declaration--Dismissed--Concurrent findings--Application for demarcation of ihata was not produced on record--Allotment of ihata--Mutation of ihata--

 PLJ 2023 Lahore (Note) 52
Present: Shahid Bilal Hassan, J.
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN--Petitioner
versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DOR, Toba Tek Singh, etc.--Respondents
C.R. No. 3184 of 2011, decided on 27.1.2022.

Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--

----S. 42--Suit for declaration--Dismissed--Concurrent findings--Application for demarcation of ihata was not produced on record--Allotment of ihata--Mutation of ihata--Petitioner was failed to fulfilled conditions of allotment order--Challenge to--Oral assertion--Pivotal document for disposal of instant case was application allegedly moved by petitioner for demarcation of his portion of ihata, which has not been produced on record and petitioner even did not move any application seeking production of said application from concerned quarters--Oral assertion is not sufficient to prove stance of petitioner--There is nothing on record to prove that petitioner fulfilled conditions of allotment order as nothing as such has been brought on record--Concurrent findings on facts cannot be disturbed when same do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous in exercise of revisional--Petition dismissed.                                                             [Para 3] A, B & C

2017 SCMR 679, 2014 SCMR 1469 & 2014 SCMR 161 ref.

Malik Saleem Iqbal Awan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Tahrim Iqbal Butt, Assistant Advocate General Punjab.

Mian Tariq Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No. 5.

Respondent No. 4 ex-parte.

Date of hearing: 27.1.2022.

Order

C.M. No. 1-C of 2017

Through this application, the applicant seeks restoration of the captioned revision petition, dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.05.2017. Relying upon the contents of the application supported by an affidavit the same is allowed subject to all just and legal exceptions. Office is directed to fix the revision petition for today.

Main Petition

Tersely, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration challenging the vires of Mutation No. 39 dated 28.02.1990 regarding allotment of disputed Ihata No. 21 measuring 10 marlas situated in Chak No. 668/9 GB, Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh. The suit was contested by the respondents while submitting written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.02.2011 dismissed suit of the petitioner, who preferred an appeal but the same was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 02.07.2011; hence, the instant revision petition.

2. Heard.

3. Considering the arguments and perusing the record, made available, as well as going through the impugned judgments and decrees, it is observed that the pivotal document for disposal of the instant case was application dated 17.08.1985 allegedly moved by the petitioner for demarcation of his portion of Ihata a, which has not been produced on record and the petitioner even did not move any application seeking production of the said application from the concerned quarters. In this view of the matter, mere oral assertion is not sufficient to prove the stance of the petitioner. Moreover, there is nothing on record to prove that the petitioner fulfilled the conditions of allotment order as nothing as such has been brought on record. In this view of the matter, the learned Courts below have rightly adjudicated upon the matter in hand by appreciating evidence in a minute manner and have reached to a just conclusion No illegality and irregularity is apparent on record warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. As such concurrent findings on facts cannot be disturbed when the same do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous in exercise of revisional jurisdiction; reliance is placed on Muhammad Farid Khan v, Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. (2017 SCMR 679), Mst. Zaitoon Begum vs. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469) and Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161).

4. For the foregoing reasons and while placing reliance on the judgments supra the civil revision in hand being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed.

(Y.A.)  Petition dismissed