2001 PLP 641 (CLC)

Sardar Muhammad Aslam for Respondents Nos, l to

5. The subject‑matter of the suit is a piece of land measuring 41 Kanals, 16 Marlas fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. This is part of Shandat Deh. The plaintiffs' case is that they are owners in possession of the suit land since the time of their forefathers. However, the defendants trespassed into the said property and .took possession of the same forcibly in October, 1985.

2. The defendants Nos.1 to 6 contested the suit and denied the allegations in plaint. They denied that the plaintiffs had any title to the suit property or that they were in possession of the same at any time. On the other hand, they counter‑claimed its title and possession as co‑sharers in Shamlat. They alleged that plaintiffs with the connivance of Revenue Patwari got prepared a bogus Khasra Girdawari in order to show their possession over the suit land but that is fake.

3. The trial Court framed four issues and the parties led evidence (oral and documentary) in support of their respective claims. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit on 20‑12‑1988. However, in appeal the case was remanded vide judgment, dated 15‑7‑2000 by Mr. Abdul Karim Langa, Additional District Judge, Jhelum, who framed the following, additional issue as issue No.3‑A:‑‑ "Whether the entries in the register Haqdaran Zamin and Khasra Girdawari commencing from 1939‑40 in favour of the plaintiffs are a result of fraud, misrepresentation and collusion with the revenue staff? OPD. "

4. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs/respondents have invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court by filing the instant writ petition and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. They have unanimously stated before me that the framing of the aforesaid issue i.e. issue No.3‑A, by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhelum, was wholly unwarranted and the learned Additional District Judge, was fully competent to adjudicate the controversy between the parties in the light of the evidence available on the file.

5. I have also gone through the oral and documentary evidence with the aid of the learned counsel for the parties and I am convinced that the judgment of the Court below (Additional District Judge, Jhelum), dated 15‑7‑2000 does not represent the true appraisal of the case: There is sufficient evidence (oral and documentary) available on the file on the basis of which the learned Additional District Judge could arrive at the truth regarding the dispossession‑of the petitioners from the suit land as alleged by them. 1, therefore, allow this writ petition, set aside the impugned judgment and decree, dated 15‑7‑2000 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhelum, and transfer the revision titled as Muhammad Bashir and others v. Ghulam Muhammad and others to the Court of the learned District Judge, Jhelum, for its adjudication in accordance with law, on the basis of evidence (oral and documentary) already available on the file. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge. Jhelum, on 4‑12‑2000. No order as to costs. H.B.T./G‑57/L_ Order accordingly.