2003 PLP 890 (CLC)

M. Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th November, 2001. This revision petition impugns the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Civil Judge, Joharabad, and of the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, dated 12-3-1991 and 23-12-1991 respectively.

2. The respondent/plaintiff Muhammad Yasin owns a shop which is adjacent to a shop owned by the petitioners/defendants. It is the claim of the respondent/plaintiff that the wall dividing the two shops, is owned exclusively by him and is entirely situated within the area owned by him. On the other hand, the petitioners/defendants claim ownership of the said wall.

3. The parties were put to issue on the basis of their pleadings. On 9-1-1991 while P.W.1 Mian Muhammad was giving evidence, the petitioners/defendants made an offer. With reference to a site plan on the record of the trial Court it was stated by learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that if the wall, which was marked "I" on the said plan, did not have the water drain of the petitioners on it, the suit of the respondent/plaintiff be decreed otherwise the suit should be dismissed. The parties agreed to the appointment of Raja Muhammad Sharif, Advocate, as Local Commission. The said Local Commission submitted his report which was prepared by him on the basis of a site inspection in the presence of the parties. According to the said report, the water drain of the petitioners was not on the disputed wall. Thereafter, on 30-1-1991 learned counsel for the parties stated that they had no objections to the report of the Local Commission.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid report, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff on 12-3-1991 while the learned Additional District Judge, Khushab, dismissed an appeal filed by the petitioners on 23-12-1991.

5. Before me learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the report of the Local Commission was not clear and, as such, the trial Court should have proceeded to record evidence and to give its decision separately on each of the issues framed by it. According to him, since this was not done and the suit of the respondent/plaintiff was decreed solely on the basis of the report submitted by the Local Commission, the decisions of the two Courts below were not sustainable. I am afraid, this contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is devoid of merit. The parties themselves agreed to the appointment of a Local Commission and also agreed that they will be bound by the report submitted by him. Additionally, even after the report was submitted they did not raise any objection to the same. In these circumstances, it was not necessary for the trial Court to record evidence or to give findings on the issues framed by it.

6. As far as the report itself is concerned, I have considered the same in the light of the proceedings recorded by the learned trial Court on 9-1-1991. I have reached the same conclusion which was arrived by the two Courts below. In the circumstances, I find that the concurrent judgments and decrees rendered by the Courts below, are not open to exception. In this view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed. H.B.T./A-724/L Revision dismissed.