IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

R.A No.93 of 2016

[ M. Swaleheen Qureshi v. M. Awais & others ]

M/s. Naveed Ahmed and Muhammad Asif, advocates for applicant.

Mr. Khalique Ahmed, advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Muhammad Aqil Zaidi, advocate for KDA.

Date of Hearing & Order:   10.02.2026.

J U D G M E N T

ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN, J -. This Civil Revision Application is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.08.2016 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Karachi-East, in Civil Appeal No.56 of 2012, whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment dated 19.01.2012 and decree dated 31.01.2012 passed by the learned IInd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-East, in Suit No.466 of 2008 were maintained, whereby the suit of Respondent No.1 was decreed.

2.         The necessary facts giving rise to this Revision Application are that respondent No.1/plaintiff filed Suit No.466 of 2008 for declaration, cancellation of documents and permanent/mandatory injunction, asserting his ownership in respect of Plot No. B-151, Sector 6-H, Korangi Town, Karachi, admeasuring 400 square yards ( the ‘subject property’). It was pleaded that the subject property was originally allotted to Rizwan Ahmed vide allotment order dated 05.11.1975     issued by KDA. Thereafter, the said allottee transferred the property to Muhammad Younus, who in turn transferred the same to Respondent No.1 through a transfer letter dated 10.10.1988. Upon payment of the prescribed charges and completion of all codal formalities, the subject property was transferred in the name of Respondent No.1 by KDA vide transfer order dated 22.02.1998, followed by execution of a registered lease deed dated 02.04.1998 before the Sub-Registrar, T-Division-XV. It was alleged that in March 2005 and again in March 2008, the applicant/defendant, along with others, attempted to dispossess the respondent No.1/plaintiff forcibly, which led to the filing of the above suit. The suit was contested; issues were framed and evidence was recorded. The learned trial court, vide judgment dated 19.01.2012, decreed the suit in favour of Respondent No.1. The applicant’s appeal (Civil Appeal No.56 of 2012) was dismissed on 20.08.2016, affirming the trial court’s judgment. Hence, the present Civil Revision Application against the concurrent findings of the courts below

3.         Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the impugned judgments and decrees suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence and were passed without proper application of judicial mind. He submits that the courts below failed to appreciate the facts correctly and decided the matter in a mechanical and hasty manner. It is further argued that the suit was bad for non-joinder of a necessary party, as Muhammad Younus, the alleged previous owner, was not impleaded. Lastly, it is contended that the concurrent findings have resulted in miscarriage of justice; hence, interference in revisional jurisdiction is warranted and the impugned judgments are liable to be set aside.

4.         On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that he is the lawful owner of the subject property, having purchased it from Muhammad Younus, thereafter got it transferred and leased in his name, and is in possession along with original title documents. It is contended that the property was never transferred in the name of the applicant, who has no lawful claim and has approached this Court with unclean hands. He argues that the applicant failed to establish any ownership before the courts below; therefore, the Trial Court rightly decreed the suit and the Appellate Court correctly dismissed the appeal. He prays that the present Civil Revision Application, being devoid of merit, be dismissed.

5.         Counsel appearing on behalf of KDA while supporting the stance of the applicant contends that as per KDA record the subject property belongs to applicant. He lastly contends that the impugned judgments are liable to be set-aside.

6.         I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7.         Through the present Civil Revision, the applicant has assailed the concurrent findings mainly on the grounds of misreading and non-reading of evidence, failure to properly consider the documents produced by the applicant during his evidence, and alleged improper reliance upon the documents of the respondent No.1, contending that the courts below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them and ignored material legal aspects, thus warranting interference under section 115, C.P.C. Conversely, the respondent No.1 alleged that the applicant, in collusion with KDA officials, fabricated allotment order, letter of acknowledgment of possession and other documents in respect of subject property.

8.         Record transpires that the learned trial Court, after framing issues and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, returned categorical findings that the lease and other title documents of Respondent No.1, including entries in the record of rights, were not disputed by any of the official respondents. From the record it appears that the respondent/plaintiff, in order to substantiate his claim, produced the complete chain of title documents demonstrating that he purchased the subject property through a registered instrument in 1997 and has remained in possession thereof since then. The search certificate placed on record also corroborates his stance. Moreover, the lease deed and other title documents, including entries in the record of rights in his favour, were not disputed by any of the official respondents or by the applicant. The record also reflects that the applicant never instituted any independent proceedings for cancellation of the respondent No.1’s title documents. The official respondents, despite having the opportunity, did not produce the original official record to disprove the respondent No.1’s claim, nor did the applicant examine any competent official witness to establish the authenticity of his own documents.

9.         As regards the stance of KDA, the record demonstrates that despite due service of notice, neither any official appeared nor was any written statement filed on its behalf. Such omission gave rise to a presumption in favour of the respondent No.1/plaintiff regarding the authenticity and genuineness of his title documents. It is also significant that Mr. Jameel Ahmed Baloch, Additional Director KDA, against whom specific allegations were levelled in the plaint, did not contest the proceedings in his official capacity but instead appeared as a private witness for the applicant. His conduct, particularly his silence in official capacity while supporting the applicant, lends credence to the respondent’s plea of mala fide and collusion.

Besides above, the contention now raised in this Revision Application on behalf of KDA that the respondent’s title documents are fictitious or fake appears to be an afterthought. The registered lease deed dated 02.04.1998 carries a strong presumption of genuineness under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, especially when executed after due departmental process. Notably, KDA remained silent for a considerable period, neither issuing any cancellation notice nor initiating any proceedings alleging fraud. The plea regarding absence of record surfaced only subsequently. Even when confronted with its failure to contest the suit and the unusual conduct of its officer appearing in a private capacity, no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming.

10.       It is settled law that revision under Section 115 C.P.C. is a supervisory jurisdiction, to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors, illegality, or material irregularity in subordinate court proceedings. Upon careful review of the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or misapplication of law warranting interference. The courts below correctly applied the principles regarding proof of execution of registered documents, genuineness of allotment / possession / transfer orders, and lawful ownership of the respondent No.1 over the subject property. Learned counsel for the Applicant also fails to controvert the concurrent findings of the courts below through any document or evidence available on the record.

11.       The upshot of the above is that no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the learned courts below, which resulted into the impugned judgments and decrees, could either be pointed out or observed, as such, the revision in hand being devoid of any force and merit was dismissed by my short order dated 10.02.2026.

            Above are the reasons of my short order dated 10.02.2026.

JUDGE

Naveed PA