2006 PLP 1532 (CLC)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

This second appeal impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court, dated 12-2-2001 and of the learned lower appellate Court, dated 30-6-2005 whereby a suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was decreed.

2. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgments and need not, therefore, be reproduced in extenso.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant firstly argued that the respondent/plaintiff had sought possession of the suit property on the basis of his title but had not produced any evidence of title. This contention was controverted by learned counsel for the'respondent who traced. the title of the respondent to one Bashir, who admittedly was owner of the suit property. It has been specifically averred in the written statement of the appellant that Bashir had alienated the property in favour of his sons who had, in turn, conveyed the same to the respondent/plaintiff.

4. The entire defence of the appellant is founded on an order (Exh.P.16) dated 8-4-1990 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) ex parte against Bashir. The said order, however, was set aside by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) through an order of review (Exh.P.19) dated 3-9-1998. The order in review was maintained by the Board of Revenue on 8-1-2003.

5. It is also important to note that the appellant Muhammad Aslam and his father Muhammad Sadiq had filed a declaratory suit claiming title to the suit-land. The plaint in the said suit is Exh.P.7 on the record. On an application (Exh.P.11), the appellant prayed that the name of Muhammad Sadiq be deleted because he had no title in the suit property. This application was allowed vide order (Exh.P.12) dated 12-1-1995. Muhammad Sadiq himself recorded his statement to have his name deleted from the array of plaintiffs. Thereafter the aforesaid declaratory suit filed by the appellant and Muhammad Sadiq was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order (Exh.P.13) dated 3-12-1995.

6. It is clear from the above narrated circumstances that before the Revenue forums it stood established that the appellant did not have any title in the suit property. The appellant's case before the Civil Court to establish his title to the disputed land also stood dismissed.

7. The learned Courts below have duly considered the above circumstances while decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. The impugned decrees are, therefore, unexceptionable. Furthermore, learned counsel for the appellant was unable to show the existence of any of the grounds mentioned in section 100, C.P.C., which would justify interference in the impugned decrees. As a consequence, this appeal is dismissed with costs. H.B.T./M-168/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.