PLJ 2024 Lahore (Note) 26
Present: Shahid Bilal Hassan, J.
Mst. HANIFAAN BIBI through Sajid Hussain
(Special Attorney)--Petitioner
versus
Mst. BALQEES AKHTAR and others--Respondents
C.R. No. 2098 of 2014, heard on 22.9.2022.
Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)--
----Ss. 42 & 54--Civil Procedure Code, (V of 1908), S. 115--Legality of mutation was challenged--Suit for declaration and permanent injunction--Dismissed--Concurrent findings--Petitioner was well aware of disputed mutation--Petitioner was duly identified by lumberdar--Petitioner was remained silent for considerable period regarding disputed mutation--Challenge to--Revisional jurisdiction--Petitioner was well aware of disputed mutation as back as in year 1986 and it strengthens stance of respondents--Why petitioner remained silent for a considerable priod of time and even it seems that suit in hand has not been instituted by her rather same has been brought by special attorney--D.W. 1 Categorically deposed that petitioner was duly identified by Lumberdar and Irshad at time of attestation of mutation in dispute--Petitioner instituted suit on after about 23 years of its attestation, despite fact, established on record, that she was well aware of disputed mutation in year 1986, suit has rightly been adjudged to be barred by limitation--Concurrent findings on facts cannot be disturbed when same do not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous in exercise of revisional jurisdiction--Civil revision dismissed. [Para 3 & 4] A, B, C, D & E
2014 SCMR 1469, 2014 SCMR 161, 2017 SCMR 679, PLD 2022 SC 13 and PLD 2022 SC 21 ref.
Mr. Muhammad Muzammil Qureshi, Advocate for Petitioner.
M/s. Ch. Tanveer Ahmad Hanjra and Rana Muhammad Arif, Advocates for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 22.9.2022.
Judgment
Facts, in concision, are as such that the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the respondents challenging the vires and legality of Mutation No. 3422 dated 08.02.1984 attested in favour of Muhammad Hussain, predecessor in interest of the respondents (real brother of the present petitioner). The suit was contested by the respondents while submitting written statement, who controverted the averments of the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and evidence of the parties, oral as well as documentary, was recorded. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2012 dismissed suit of the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 01.04.2014; hence, the instant revision petition.
2. Heard.
3. It remained stance of the petitioner that Muhammad Hussain (deceased), predecessor in interest of the Respondents, used to give her Hissa Batai but she could not bring on record any evidence in this regard. Moreover, earlier to institution of the suit under discussion, the special attorney alongwith his brothers instituted a suit Ex.D1 against their mother in the year 1986 wherein the Mutation No. 3422 dated 08.02.1984, subject matter of the instant revision was challenged and sought to be cancelled; meaning thereby the petitioner was well aware of the disputed mutation as back as in the year 1986 and it strengthens the stance of the respondents that she herself got entered and attested the mutation in favour of Muhammad Hussain, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, that is why she remained silent for a considerable priod of time and even it seems that the suit in hand has not been instituted by her rather the same has been brought by special attorney and this observation finds support from the fact that she did not jump into the witness box as her witness despite the fact that purportedly she was deprived of her valuable right. The above observation also finds support from the deposition of D.W.1 i.e. Mian Zulfiqar Ali, Revenue Officer, who is an independent witness and he categorically deposed that Mst. Hanifaan Bibi was duly identified by Haqnawaz Lumberdar and Irshad at the time of attestation of the mutation in dispute. In this view of the matter, the learned Courts below have rightly appreciated evidence on record and have reached to a just conclusion.
Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in hand as the mutation was sanctioned on 08.02.1984 and the petitioner instituted suit on 16.02.2017, after about 23 years of its attestation, despite the fact, established on record, that she was well aware of the disputed mutation in the year 1986, the suit has rightly been adjudged to be barred by limitation.
4. In view of the above, the concurrent findings on facts cannot be disturbed when the same do not suffer from any misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; reliance is placed on Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469), Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161), Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. (2017 SCMR 679), Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 13) and Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 21) wherein it has been held:
‘There is a difference between the misreading, non-reading and misappreciation of the evidence therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law. This Court in the case of Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630) held that the concurrent findings of three Courts below on a question of fact, if not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence and not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity effecting the merits of the case are not open to question at the revisional stage.’
5. Pursuant to the above, when there appears no illegality and irregularity as well as wrong exercise of jurisdiction, the revision petition in hand being without any force and substance, stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.
(Y.A.) Revision petition dismissed
0 Comments