RIAZ vs MUHAMMAD SALIM and 4 others

ORDER

1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 14th February, 1989 whereby civil revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. ' Briefly the facts are that Muhammad Salim respondent brought a suit for possession of 3 Marlas of the disputed land on the ground that by virtue of having purchased the same from the previous owner on 10th February, 1981 he was owner thereof and that Riaz the present petitioner as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 5 had unauthorisedly and forcibly taken possession of the said land. The civil suit was contested. Muhammad Salim respondent produced oral as well as documentary evidence and likewise defence witnesses were examined and documents produced in rebuttal. The Civil Judge decided the issues in favour of Muhammad Salim respondent and the suit was decreed against Riaz petitioner only, whereas it was dismissed as against respondents Nos. 2 to 5. The present petitioner being aggrieved challenged the impugned judgment and decree by way of appeal against Muhammad Salim respondent as well as respondents Nos. 2 to 5 but the appeal was dismissed. Thus, the concurrent findings of the two Courts below were that the present petitioner could not establish that he was owner of the disputed property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed civil revision in the Lahore High Court, Lahore but on the date when the case was fixed for hearing on 5th December, 1988 in motion he did not enter appearance nor his counsel had appeared, although the counsel representing Muhammad Salim respondent did appear. His civil revision was therefore dismissed in default and for non-prosecution. But instead of moving the Court in order to seek restoration of the same he filed a second civil revision on 16th January, 1989 after about six months of the first civil revision filed on 19th July, 1988. The second civil revision as stated above was dismissed for the reason that it had been filed after the expiry of the unprescribed period of limitation of 90 days. Hence the present petition.

3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue before us that if a civil revision is dismissed in default a second revision could be filed and entertained after 90 days if the Court was satisfied about the delay. Learned counsel submitted that there was a conflict of rulings as to whether this could be done if restoration is moved of the previous civil revision which had been dismissed in default, or even in the case of a fresh second revision. Learned counsel further submitted that a definite pronouncement of law on the point should be made by this Court, but we asked the learned counsel to show us if the petitioner has a case on merits. The crucial issue in this case was as to whether Muhammad Salim respondent who was originally the plaintiff in the suit was the owner of the disputed property. He produced oral as well as documentary evidence and the Courts below arrived at the concision that he had purchased the property in question from the previous owner who had been examined as P.W.2 and who had stated that the land in dispute was sold by him to Muhammad Salim respondent and possession was also delivered. This testimony was corroborated by the statement of the Patwari and the contents of the copy of the Roznamcha Waqiati. Thus, the concurrent finding of fact of the two lower Courts is that Muhammad Salim respondent had successfully proved his title over the disputed land whereas the present petitioner was in illegal possession thereof. This concurrent finding of fact had been decided against the petitioner which could have not been interfered with in revision. Since this is the position no case is made out for interference. As a result this petition is dismissed.