1991 PLP 47 (MLD)

Muhammad Mushtaq respondent filed a suit against L.D.A., petitioner for declaration to the effect that Notice No. 321-SQ, dated 9-3-1978 issued by LDA/Petitioner was mala fide as neither any change in the building had been carried out by him nor any encroachment had been made on the road, as alleged in the notice. As a consequential relief it was prayed that the defendants be restrained from demolishing any portion of the building in his occupation. It has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was occupying a shop situate in Property No. S-19-R-47 commonly known as 42-The Mall, Lahore as a tenant. The owner of the shop wanted this shop to be vacated, so he in connivance with the staff of the petitioner has got the notice for demolishment of the shop issued against him although he had neither made any structural changes in the shop nor has he encroached the road in any 'Manner. The suit was, resisted. During the pendency of the suit Muhammad Khurshid and Dr. Shabbir Ahmad were impleaded as party on their application. Since they did not participate in the proceedings, so they were proceeded against ex parte.

2. The parties adduced evidence. The plaintiff produced Zia Ahmad P.W.1., Muhammad Ashfaq P.W.2 and Muhammad Ashfaq P.W.3. He tendered Exh. P.l, copy of the judgment dated 4-6-1979 in evidence. Applications marked `A/1 and B/1' were received under objection. To rebut this evidence, the petitioner produced Muhammad Saeed, Building Inspector L.DA., D.W.1 and Muhammad Waheed, S.D.O., Survey Town Planning, D.W.2 and tendered plan marked `A', which was received under objection. The trial Court decreed the suit on 11-1-1987. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 10-12-1988, hence this revision.

3. Before me, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the findings of the Courts below on issue No. 5 which is as under:- "Whether the notice in question is illegal and mala fide? Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgments of the Courts below are based on misreading/non-reading of evidence more particularly of site-plan marked `A'.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. The question as to whether any structural changes were made in the shop or any encroachment was made on the road so as to justify the issuance of the notice in dispute, are questions of facts. The Courts below have concurrently found these facts against the petitioner. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of material evidence by the Courts below. The site plan marked `A' has not been proved in accordance with law. The photostat copy marked `A' does not take the case of the petitioner any further. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional power of this Court with the well-reasoned concurrent judgments of the Courts below. So, the revision is dismissed in limine. AA./L-105/L Revision dismissed.