IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR.

Civil Revision Application No. S-56 of 2019.

Applicants: 1. Ali Muhammad son of Muhammad Ali Burdi.

2. Imran son of Allah Wadhayo.

3. Aamir son of Allah Wadahyo.

4. Shakeelan d/o Allah Wadhayo.

5. Nailan d/o Allah Wadhayo.

6. Raheelan d/o Allah Wadhayo.

7. Sajida d/o Allah Wadhayo.

8. Kamran s/o Allah Wadhayo.

9. Bahadur s/o Allah Wadhayo.

10. Mst. Allah Dini wd/o Allah Wadhayo.

All by caste Burdi, Resident of village Muhammad Ali Burdi, Taluka and District Khairpur through their Special Attorney Ali Dino s/o Muhammad Ali Burdi R/O village Muhammad Ali Burdi, Taluka and District Khairpur.

Through Mr. Safdar Ali Bhatti, Advocate.

Respondents: 1. Mst. Shahidan.

2. Mst. Rozina.

3. Mst. Nahidan.

All daughters of Late Allah Dino Burdi, R/o village Muhammad Ali Burdi, Taluka and District Khairpur.

4. Member Board of Revenue, Hyderabad.

5. Assistant Commissioner, Revenue Khairpur.

6. Mukhtiarkar Revenue, Khairpur.

7. Sub-Registrar, Khairpur.

Through Mr. Haji Shamsuddin Rajper advocate.

The State: Through Mr. Mehboob Ali Wassan, AAG.

Date of hearing: 25-03-2021.

Date of decision: 25-03-2021.

O R D E R.

IRSHAD ALI SHAH, J. The facts in brief necessary for disposal of instant Civil Revision Application as per applicants are that they have purchased the suit land on 02-06-1994 from the private respondents by way of oral statements made by them before Mukhtiarkar Khairpur; such entry was made in revenue record, it was canceled subsequently, on application made by the private respondents, by Assistant Commissioner Khairpur vide his order dated 11-11-2015, such order on preferring an appeal was set-aside by Additional Deputy Commissioner-I Khairpur vide his order dated 12-06-2016. On preference of an appeal, the order passed Additional Deputy Commissioner-I Khairpur was set-aside by Additional Commissioner-II Sukkur vide his order dated 12-06-2017, which is impugned by the applicants by making a revision application, which is pending adjudication before Member Board of Revenue Hyderabad Sindh. In these premises, the applicants apprehending their dispossession from the suit land and to prevent its sale filed a suit for permanent injunction before learned I-Senior Civil Judge Khairpur whereby they prayed for following relief;

a. “That this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to grant permanent injunctions in favour of the plaintiffs thereby restraining the defendants, their agents, or anybody else on their behalf or claiming through them from interfering or otherwise creating any obstacles, charges or encumbrance with the rights, title, possession and enjoyment of the suit land by the plaintiffs without due course of law till the dispute in between plaintiffs and private defendants be decided.

b. That this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to restrain the official defendants No. 04 and 05 from issuing any sell certificate of the suit land and also restrain the defendant No.07 from registration of any sale deed in respect of the suit land till the final decision between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 01 to 03.

c. To award the costs of suit beside any other relief deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case”.

2. The suit filed by the applicants was dismissed by learned trial Court on 29-10-2018, such dismissal of their suit was impugned by the applicants by preferring an appeal, it was also dismissed by learned IInd Additional District Judge Khairpur vide his judgment dated 23-02-2019, which is impugned by the applicants before this Court by making instant Civil Revision Application.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are in lawful possession of the suit land; therefore, they are entitled to retain its peaceful possession till finalization of their litigation on revenue side. By contending so, he sought for setting aside of the impugned judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the private respondents and learned AAG by supporting the impugned judgment have sought for dismissal of instant civil revision application by contending that the very suit was in competent and it has rightly been dismissed by learned trial and appellate Courts.

5. I have considered the arguments and perused the record.

6. After cancellation of mutation entry in record of rights, existing in favour of the applicants, the status of the applicants over the suit land has become that of encroacher. The encroacher could hardly claim equity. Be that as it may, the issuance of sale certificate and registration of sale deed is a public function. No public functionary in terms of section 56 (d) of the Specific Relief Act could be prevented from discharging its public function. If for the sake of arguments, it is believed that there is dispute between the parties over the title of the suit land, then the simple suit for permanent injunction without seeking declaration of the title under garb of pendency of litigation on revenue side was in competent in terms of section 56 (i) of the Specific Relief Act. In these circumstances, learned trial and appellate Courts were right to dismiss the simple suit of the applicants for permanent injunction, such dismissal of their suit is not calling for any interference by this Court by way of instant Civil Revision Application, same being incompetent is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.

Judge

Nasim/Steno