2026 PLP 869 (MLD)

Johar Ali, J.

The petitioners/defendants have filed the instant Civil Revision Petition against the judgment/decree dated 30-10-2024, passed by the learned District Judge Astore, in C.F.A. No.15/2024; whereby, the learned District Judge Astore has dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners/defendants and maintained the judgment/decree dated 22-06-2024, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Astore, in Civil Suit No.32/2022.

2. Brief facts of the case in hand are that present respondent/plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.32/2022 before the learned Senior Civil Judge Astore against the petitioners/defendants for declaration of his title over disputed property and for perpetual injunction against the present petitioners/defendants restraining them from demolishing wall and house of present respondent/plaintiff, situated at Eidgah Astore. The present respondent/plaintiff claims that the disputed property is his ancestral property as his forefathers constructed house and wall on the disputed property in the year 1960, since then the respondent/plaintiff has been residing over disputed property. Neither respondent/plaintiff nor his forefathers encroached over polo-ground land as their forefathers constructed the Polo-ground themselves, where they used to play Polo, but the present petitioners/defendants are malafidely bent upon to demolish wall and house of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of bogus demarcation.

3. The present petitioners/defendants had contested the suit by filling of their written statement, wherein, they have denied the averments of the plaint on many legal and factual grounds.

4. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court framed eight issues including issue of relief to determine the fate of the suit and passed his detailed findings on each and every issue. Finally, the learned Trial Court vide judgment/decree dated 22-06-2024, decreed the suit of the present respondent/plaintiff as prayed for. Being dissatisfied with the same, the present petitioners/defendants filed Civil First Appeal (CFA No.15/2024) before the learned District Judge Astore. The learned First Appellate Court after hearing arguments of the parties passed his detailed findings on the issues framed by the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal of the present petitioners/defendants with costs vide judgment/decree dated 30-10-2024 and maintained the judgment/decree of the learned Trial Court dated 22-06-2024. Being aggrieved from the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, the petitioners/defendants have filed the instant Revision Petition with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, mostly respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously set aside the impugned judgment/decree dated 30-10-2024 prepared on 19-11-2024 passed in CFA No. 15/2024 by the learned District Court Astore by holding the same illegal, incorrect and without authority in the best interest of justice, law and equity."

5. The learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the petitioners/defendants contended that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below suffer both from mistake of facts and mistake of law and liable to be set aside. He further contended that the learned Trial Court after framing of issues and subsequently evidence was led and hearing the arguments allowed the prayer of the respondent/plaintiff which is not tenable in the eyes of law on facts and in the context of the laws enforced. The learned Addl. AG further argued that as a matter of fact the learned Trial Court framed eight issues and same have been taken as points for determination by the learned District Court while deciding the appeal. He further argued that the learned District Court has mainly relied on oral evidence of the plaintiff to disprove the claims of the petitioners/defendants and no documentary evidence was led by the respondent/plaintiff to prove the claim even having the property in his own name, as it is a general law that without having any title to the property, no relief can be sought from the Courts of law. The learned Addl. AG further submitted that the petitioners/defendants have started anti-encroachment drive which is purely also an administrative work as well and same was carried away in the benefit of the public at large, but has to be stopped, which otherwise has been completed if restraining orders were not passed and subsequently impugned decrees were not passed by the Courts below. The learned Addl. AG lastly prayed for setting aside impugned judgment/decree dated 30-10-2024 passed by the learned District Judge Astore, in CFA No.15/2024, holding the same illegal, incorrect and without authority in the best interest of justice, law and equity.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff opposed the arguments advanced by the learned Addl. Advocate General and supported the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned Lower Courts and contended that the learned Lower Courts have passed well-reasoned judgments/decrees and the same may be maintained. They have further contended that the learned Addl. AG has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned Lower Courts; therefore, the impugned judgments/decrees are liable to be maintained. They have further submitted that the disputed property is ancestral property of the respondent/plaintiff as his forefathers constructed house and wall on the disputed property in the year 1960 and since then the respondent/plaintiff has been residing over disputed property. They have further submitted that neither respondent/plaintiff nor his forefathers encroached over polo-ground land as their forefathers constructed the Polo-ground themselves, where they used to play Polo, but the present petitioners/defendants are malafidely bent upon to demolish wall and house of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of bogus demarcation, hence, both the learned Courts below have rightly allowed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff have lastly prayed for dismissal of the instant Revision Petition to meet the ends of justice, law and equity.

7. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record with their able assistance.

8. The learned Trial Court had framed specific issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties and recorded evidence of both sides in detail. The findings so recorded are supported by reasons and duly corroborated by oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. Perusal of the impugned judgments/decrees reveals that both the learned Courts below have discussed the claim of the respondent/plaintiff in the light of the evidence produced by him and have reached a concurrent conclusion that respondent/plaintiff has successfully proved his possession over the disputed property since long and that the petitioners/defendants failed to substantiate their contention that the said property forms part of the Polo-ground land or any other government land. The oral evidence of the plaintiff, supported by long and continuous possession, carries presumptive value under the law, particularly when the petitioners/defendants could not produce any documentary evidence to establish government ownership of the disputed site.

9. Admittedly, both the learned Courts below have concurrently decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintiff on the basis of evidence produced before them. It is settled law that concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below cannot ordinarily be interfered within the revisional jurisdiction of this Court unless the same are found to be perverse, contrary to record, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. The learned Addl. AG failed to point out any such material illegality, irregularity, misreading, or non-reading of evidence which could justify interference by this Court in revisional jurisdiction.

10. The contention of the learned Addl. Advocate General that the disputed property was part of an anti-encroachment drive also appears misconceived. Even in such cases, the administration is bound to follow due legal process by identifying, notifying, and establishing encroachment in accordance with law. The record shows no such lawful procedure having been followed before issuance of orders or commencement of demolition activity against respondent/plaintiff. Hence, the concurrent findings do not appear to suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court.

11. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgments/decrees dated 22-06-2024 and 30-10-2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and learned District Judge Astore, respectively, are well-reasoned, based on proper appreciation of evidence and law, and call for no interference by this Court. Resultantly, this Civil Revision Petition No. 04/2025 along with Civil Misc. No. 110/2025 is dismissed. No order as to costs. File. MQ/3/GB Revision dismissed.