Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑5. 115 & O. XXVI, Rr. 9 & 10‑‑Appointment of Local Commissioner‑‑ Judgment based on report of Local Commissioner‑‑Revision Petitioner alleging misreading of report of Local Commissioner by Appellate Court below not only failed to point out which part of such report was misread by Court, but instead very candidly conceded that judgment of Courts below was quite consistent with Local Commissioner's Report‑ There being no defect in report of Local Commissioner, revision against judgment of Appellate Court below, held, was whole devoid of merits.

Mehr Ghulam Ali Mobashar for Petitioners.

This revision petition calls in question the judgment and decree dated 11‑3‑1986 passed, by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad.

The facts of the case may be briefly stated as under:

The respondent Mst. Sakina Bibi and her mother Haleema Bibi respectively the daughter and widow of one Badarud Din instituted a suit against Labhu, the predecessor‑in‑interest of petitioners Nos.l to 9 and Abdul Majid, petitioner No. 10 for possession of a plot measuring 5 Kanals, situated in Killa No. 23/24, Square No. 62/15, Khatoni No. 1615, Khewat No. 1311 according to Jamabandi for the year 1966‑67, situated in Farooqabad, commonly known as Barkatpura in Chak No. 224/R.B., Tehsil and District Faisalabad after demolition of the construction raised thereon and removal of the debits therefrom as also for recovery of Rs.4,000 as mesne profits.

This suit was resisted by Labhu and Abdul Majid which was, however, decreed by the then Civil Judge, Faisalabad vide his judgment and decree dated 21‑6‑1974.

The defendants therein preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad who remanded the case with a direction that the demarcation of the suit property be first obtained and the suit decided afresh.

On remand the learned Additional Administrative Civil Judge, Faisalabad appointed the Tehsildar, Faisalabad as Local Commissioner for demarcation of the suit property who submitted his report on 31‑3‑1980 which, on the objection of the parties, was set aside, whereafter Mr. . Javed Iqbal Malik, Advocate was appointed as Local Commissioner for the same purpose whose report dated 2‑9‑1981 was again objected to and was set aside. Finally Syed Faqir Hussain Bukhari, Advocate, Faisalabad, was appointed Local Commissioner who submitted his report on 21/23‑5‑1982. In the meanwhile Labhu, the predecessor‑in- interest of the petitioners had died and the present petitioners were brought on record as his legal heirs on 6‑12‑1981.

The last report of the Local Commissioner dated 21/23‑5‑1982 was objected to by the defendants only on which an issue to the effect whether the said report was liable to be set aside was framed. The learned Civil Judge, then seized of the matter, by order, dated 23‑5‑1983 rejected the objection and upheld the report whereafter the matter was entrusted to the Court of Syed Sultan Ahmad, Civil Judge, 1st Class Faisalabad who ultimately decided the case after remand. This leaned Civil Judge found issues Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 8 in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants whilst issue No. 7 was decided against the plaintiffs‑respondents. On issue No. 6, the learned Civil Judge gave the findings that the petitioners were owners of Plot No. 23/17 but were in possession of the strip of land measuring 7 feet in width out of Plot No. 23/24 owned by the respondent‑plaintiff. He by his judgment and decree dated 18‑6‑1985 decreed the suit of the respondent‑plaintiff against the defendants for possession of land measuring 7 feet in width as detailed by the Local Commissioner in his report and rejected the claim of the plaintiff regarding the suit land.

Feeling dissatisfied the respondent who appears to have succeeded his mother as well preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Faisalabad against the aforementioned judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, dated 18‑6‑1985. This appeal was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad by his judgment and decree dated 11‑3‑1986 and he decreed the suit of the respondent holding‑that the plaintiff will recover the possession of portion in occupation of Abdul Majid defendant (petitioner No. 10) to the extent of 23' x 45' and the portion to the extent of 7' x 45' from petitioners Nos. 1 to 9.

The defendants‑petitioners feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge have come up to this Court in the present revision petition.

The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners before me is that the learned Additional District Judge while passing the impugned judgment and decree misread the report of the Local Commissioner.

The report of the Local Commissioner had not been annexed with the revision petition. 1, on the first date of preliminary hearing asked the learned counsel for the petitioners how he is advancing this argument as the copy of the report is not on the record. He took time to place the said copy on record and for that purpose he made an application which was allowed by order dated 31‑5‑1982.

Today, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioners to show me which part of the report of Local Commissioner has been misread by the learned Additional District Judge. He has not been able to show, any portion of the report of the Local Commissioner which has been in any manner misread by the learned Additional Distict Judge. In fact, the learned counsel very candidly conceded that the averments in the impunged judgment are consistent with the Local Commissioner's report, a portion of which in fact had been ignored by the Trial Court.

I also find that the Local Commissioner's report on which objections of the petitioners‑defendants have been overruled gives the precise measurements of the plot of the respondent‑plaintiff and the illegal occupation thereof by the two sets of defendants viz. petitioners Nos. l to 9 and petitioner No. 10.

In view of the foregoing discussion I find that the present revision petition is wholly devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.