2013 PLP 2524 (YLR)

SARDAR ABDUL HAMEED KHAN, J.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge Kotli dated 29-2-2012, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. The precise facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the present appellant has brought a suit for declaration in the Court of Civil Judge Kotli on 6-2-2008. It is averred that the plaintiff is owner in possession of the land to the extent of his share comprising Khewet No. 317, Khata No. 1423, Khasra No. 1152, measuring 1 Kanal, 10 Marlas situated in Village Naar Dadihalan Tehsil Charhoi District Kotli. The plaintiff alleged that he also got NOC on 8-6-2005 from Collector District Kotli regarding the land in dispute. It is further alleged that in the presence of respectables of the locality an agreement between plaintiff and respondent No. 1 was finalized. According to agreement, the respondent No. 1 will construct Shops over the land in dispute and half of the Shops will be of the plaintiff and the other Shops will be of the respondent No.

1. In this way, after the completion of shops, the respondent No. 1 will be bound to cancel the sale-deed to the extent of Shops of plaintiff and the sale-deed will remain intact regarding the rest of the shops. It was also agreed between the parties, that till completion of shops, the respondent No. 1 will not transfer any share of the land in dispute. It is further stated that the respondent No. 1 by fraudulently transferred the land in dispute as "Fee Sabelilla" in his own name, comprising Khewet No. 317, Khata No. 1423, Khasra No. 1152, measuring 1 Kanal, 10 Marlas Shamlat Deh, situated in Village Naar Dadihalan Tehsil Charhoi District Kotli on 11-6-2005. The plaintiff stated that the land in dispute is in possession of the plaintiff till now. The plaintiff also submitted that the respondent No. 1 by violating the agreement, transferred the Shamlat Deh land through sale-deed comprising Khasra No. 1152 measuring 5 Marlas, situated in Village Naar Dadihalan Tehsil Charhoi District Kotli on 5-10-2005, while the above said 5 Marlas is in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff prayed that the sale deeds dated 5-1-2005, 11-6-2005 and all entries in the Revenue Record made on the basis of above said sale-deeds may kindly be declared null, void, illegal, without possession, against the facts and against the rights of the plaintiff. After hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge Kotli dismissed the suit vide its order dated 26-8-2011. Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment of the learned Civil Judge, the appellant filed an appeal in the Court of District Judge Kotli, which was entrusted to Additional District Judge Kotli for hearing and disposal. The learned Additional District Judge Kotli after hearing the parties also dismissed the appeal filed by the present appellant, hence this second appeal. Arguments have been heard. Mr. Muhammad Najeeb Raja, learned counsel for appellant argued that the learned Additional District Judge fell in error while passing the impugned judgment. The learned counsel also argued that the trial Court should have to decide the case on merit after recording the evidence of the parties. He argued that the learned Additional District Judge did not pass the impugned order in a legal fashion and dismissed the appeal illegally, against law and facts. The learned counsel argued that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are against law and fact, which are liable to be set aside and the case may be remanded to the trial Court. The learned counsel prayed that the instant appeal may be accepted. While controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant, Sardar Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, the learned counsel for respondents argued that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are based on sound and cogent reasonings, these do not require any interference by this Court. The learned counsel argued that the trial Court provided several opportunities to the appellant/plaintiff to produce evidence, but he failed in spite of availing so many opportunities. The learned counsel also argued that the Courts below have passed the judgments and decrees in accordance with law. The learned counsel prayed that the instant appeal may be dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully. The perusal of the record shows that the appellant/ plaintiff was ordered to produce evidence in support of his claim on 25-10-2008 and the appellant/plaintiff did not file any list of witnesses. The trial Court granted more than eighteen opportunities to the appellant/plaintiff from 25-10-2008 to 26-8-2011, but the appellant failed to produce any evidence. The trial Court as well as Additional District Judge has passed the speaking orders, as it is apparent from the record that the suit was dismissed twice for non-prosecution and then it was restored. Thereafter the negligent prosecution of the appellant/ plaintiff does not entitle him any more concession. The impugned judgment is wisely drawn keeping in view all the legal provisions which warrants no interference by this Court. The upshot of the above discussion is that finding no force in this appeal, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs. AG/44/H.C.(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.