IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH

CIRCUIT COURT, LARKANA.

 

 

 

Civil Revision 20 of 2020   :           Rano&Others vs.

                                                            P.O Sindh & Others

 

For the Applicants               :           Mr. Abdul Rehman Bhutto, Advocate

                                                           

Date of hearing                    :           17.01.2022.

 

Date of announcement      :           17.01.2022.

 

 

ORDER

 

Agha Faisal, J. This Civil Revision assails concurrent findings, whereby a suit for declaration and permanent injunction and mandatory injunction with respect to suit property was dismissed and the judgment was subsequently upheld in appeal. Applicants’ counsel pleads that the judgments under challenge have been rendered on the basis of mis-appreciation of evidence, hence, this civil revision.

2.            Heard and perused. The ambit of civil revisions is circumscribed by section 115 CPC and it is apparent that the same is not a subsequent form of statutory appeal.Unless one or more of the ingredients of Section 115 CPC are apparent, a revision does not ordinarily lie.

3.         The suit in respect of the immovable property was dismissed by the Court of learned 2nd Senior Civil Judge, Shikarpur, vide judgment dated 06.12.2018, as the learned Court was of the opinion that no case had been setforth for grant of relief prayed. The judgment demonstrates that the learned Court duly framed issues, sought evidence and rendered a detailed judgment upon consideration thereof. In appeal, learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Shikarpur upheld judgment and decree and the conclusion reached was found to be in consonance with the evidence and the law. It is considered appropriate to reproduce operative observations of the learned Appellate Court herein below:

 

“14.           The minute perusal of record shows that surprisingly appellant/plaintiff No. 4 is claiming declaration regarding ownership of suit property on the basis of alleged sale-agreement dated: 11.08.2001 but he cannot claim ownership of suit property on the basis of such sale agreement. On the other hand, appellant No. 4 has only examined himself and even he did not bother to examine any of the other appellant/co-plaintiff in support of his version, hence strong negative presumption can be drawn against the appellant No. 4 that he has withheld his best evidence for the reasons best known to him. It is also surprising that appellant No. 4 is allegedly claiming that he had purchased suit property through a sale agreement executed by late Rasool Bux and respondent No. 7 Muhammad Umer but it is very surprising to note that above both persons were not exclusive owners of suit property and legal heirs of late Ghous Bux, Dost Muhammad alias Dosoo and Gullan were available in the field. On the other hand, entry No. 87 kept in village Form VII-A was found bogus and manipulated on the basis of which the appellant No. 4 is claiming that he had purchased the suit property, as discussed hereinabove. It is also admitted position that respondent No. 7 Muhammad Umer and respondent No. 8 Mst. Marvi who are son and daughter of late Rasool Bux have not supported the version of appellant No. 4 and even otherwise he has not examined any of appellants No. 1 to 3 in support of his version, hence serious doubt has arisen regarding pleas taken by appellant No. 4 in his plaint. It is also matter of record that appellant No. 4 has never filed Suit for Specific Performance of Contract regarding suit property because mere a sale agreement does not creates right, title and legal character in respect of suit property.

 

                15/-           Now turning to the other aspect of case, according to which respondent No. 3 learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) Shikarpur passed order on the application whereby he has cancelled the entry No. 87 which was apparently found by him bogus and manipulated ‘Without any foundation. It is also matter of record that Revision was preferred against such order before learned Member (Reform Wing & Special Cell) Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad who also maintained the order passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue), Shikarpur. It is also matter of record that a Review Petition was submitted before learned Member (Judicial-1) Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad and same was also dismissed, vide order dated; 27.09.2005, hence matter attained finality before revenue hierarchy. The learned trial Judge has clearly observed while deciding vital Issue No. 2 that entry No. 87 in village Form VII-A is not genuine and correct as it does not reflect any previous entry from where it was taken and also that it does not show date and he has further observed while deciding another vital Issue No. 3 that entries No.129 and 130 are genuine and  correct as both were properly reflected in revenue record, hence  learned trial Judge has very rightly decided Issue No. 2 in negative  and issue No.3  in positive.


16/-            From perusal of contents of Judgment, it shows that all Issues framed were discussed in detail and proper findings were given on the same, hence there is no need of remanding back the case to learned trial Court because both the main orders passed by respondents No. 2 and 3 were declared legal by learned trial Court and in case Review Petition was filed before Member (Judicial-1) Board of Revenue Sindh Hyderabad, the same was also dismissed and no relief was granted in favour of appellant No. 4, hence from the perusal of entire record it. appears that all the three orders passed by learned Executive District Officer (Revenue) Shikarpur, learned Member (Reform Wing & Special Cell) Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad and learned Member (Judicial-1) Board of Revenue Sindh, Hyderabad are in accordance with law. The learned counsel for appellant has failed to point out any material illegality or irregularity in the impugned Judgment and Decree passed by learned trial Court. Moreover, detailed, speaking and well reasoned Judgment has been passed by learned trial Court which needs no interference by this Court at the appellate stage.


17/-          The result of aforesaid discussion is that impugned Judgment and Decree dated; 06.12.2018 respectively passed by the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Shikarpur are in accordance with law and are not suffering from any legal flaw, as such same are not liable to be interfered, therefore, the civil appeal filed by appellant is hereby dismissed and impugned Judgment and Decree are maintained. The parties shall bear their own costs. Let the decree be prepared and R&Ps of F.C Suit No. 07/2015 along-with copy of this Judgment and Decree be communicated to the learned trial court for information.”

 

4.           The original judgment as well as judgment in appeal appear to have considered the evidence and the law and no infirmity in respect thereof has been pointed out to this Court.

5.         This Court has carefully considered the contentions of the applicant and has noted the inability of the learned counsel to cite a single ground based upon which the jurisdiction of this Court could be exercised under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. There is no suggestion that the impugned judgments are either an exercise without jurisdiction or a failure to exercise jurisdiction or an act in exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with any material irregularity.

6.         It is the considered view of this court that the applicant has remained unable to demonstrate any infirmity with the respective judgments meriting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C, therefore, this revision is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

JUDGE