2020 PLP 2078 (CLC)

AYESHA A. MALIK, J.

Through the instant petition, the Petitioner has impugned orders dated 1.11.2017 and 20.12.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Chiniot.

2. The basic facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed a suit for declaration along with possession with reference to land falling in Khata No.2519/2498, Khasra No.15804/9883/2 land measuring 10-M 0-S 15/90th share measuring 01-M 06-S and Khata No.2510/2489, Khasra No.9882 land measuring 02-K 0-M 79/432th share measuring 08-M 07-S total land measuring 10-M 04-S according to jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 situated in Chah-Isawali Mouza Chiniot along with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The Respondent contested the suit which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2015 passed by Civil Judge 1st Class, Chiniot. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chiniot and in the appeal moved an application for additional evidence. The court ordered for the appointment of local commission on 28.3.2017 with the consent of both the parties for demarcating the property in order to settle the dispute between the parties. The local commission submitted its report, however the Respondent moved objections against the said report of the local commission essentially stating that they were never issued notice or called for the purposes of demarcation. The court on hearing the objections of the Respondent, set aside the report of the local commission and ordered for a fresh local commission to be appointed vide impugned order dated 1.11.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a review application calling for recall of order dated 1.11.2017 which application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.12.2017 against which the instant Civil Revision has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the application filed by the Petitioner for additional evidence simply sought the demarcation of the property which both parties agreed to vide order dated 28.3.2017. Learned counsel argued that there was no reason to appoint a fresh local commission as the original local commission had filed his report and the contention of the Respondent that they did not participate in the demarcation process is totally against the record.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the Respondent was never issued any notice to participate in the demarcation proceedings nor was he called upon at the time of demarcation and that the report was filed without the signatures of the local commission. The court duly considered this matter and set aside that report and appointed a fresh local commission since the report in question was not made in accordance with law.

5. As per the record, the parties requested for demarcation of the suit property through the appointment of the local commission vide order dated 28.3.2017. The Petitioner then moved an application calling for the local commission to appear as a witness in the court with respect to the report of the local commission. However, this application was dismissed on the ground that report of the local commission has not been tendered and at this stage there is no requirement of calling him as a court witness. In the said order the court concluded that the local commission has tendered a report which has not been accepted by the court on account of the fact that the Respondent was not issued notice to participate in the demarcation process. The Court concluded that there is nothing available on the record in support of the Petitioners' contention that notices were served, therefore a fresh local commission was ordered to demarcate the property vide order dated 1.11.2017. Against this order, the Petitioner filed a review application seeking to have the order of 1.11.2017 recalled which was duly considered by the court and dismissed vide the impugned order dated 20.12.2017 on the ground that the report of the local commission is incomplete as there is no report of the revenue authorities supporting the findings of the local commission nor are there any documents appended with the report on the basis of which the local commission made his report appended. Therefore both orders have been made by consulting the record. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner admitted that the report filed by the local commission was not a signed document and he was unable to show that the contention of the Respondent that he was not associated in the demarcation process was incorrect.

6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant Revision Petition is dismissed. SA/M-127/L Petition dismissed.