1986 PLP 2872 (MLD)

For the purpose of transfer under the Settlement laws property No.166, situate on Mayo Road, Dharampura, Lahore, was divided into three portions; two were of residential nature and the third was a shop. The residential portions were marked as A and B. Portion A was transferred to Abdul Khaliq, respondent. Portion B was transferred to Anis Ahmad and some others. Subsequently,. Anis Ahmad etc. sold their portion to Muhammad Siddique petitioner. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, against Anis Ahmad; etc. which is still pending but this suit is irrelevant so far as these proceedings are concerned.

2. Apparently, the petitioner and the respondent were not good neighbours. On 29‑9‑1981 the petitioner filed a suit for a mandatory' injunction to stop the respondent from raising a partition wall between their respective portions. During the course of the proceedings 'the respondent produced two orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner relating to the demarcation of the property: On this the petitioner filed another suit to challenge the legality of the said orders.

3. The suit for mandatory injunction was on the file of 'Mr. Zawar Ahmad, Civil Judge, Lahore while the suit challenging the legality of the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner "was entrusted to Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, Civil Judge, Lahore. On the prayer of the petitioner the suit relating to permanent injunction was also transferred to the Court of Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti.

4. On 22‑6‑1982 the respondent made a statement before Mr: Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti, Civil Judge, that he had no objection if the suit for mandatory injunction was decreed. against him. On the basis of that statement Mr. Muhammad Ashraf 'Bhatti granted a decree to the petitioner on that very day.

5. In the suit challenging the legality of the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner two applications were moved; one by the petitioner and the other by the respondent. The petitioner sought a temporary injunction pendente lite. The respondent on his part asked for the rejection of the plaint. By an order, dated 22‑6‑1982 the learned trial Judge dismissed both the applications. From the order of the learned trial Judge the petitioner preferred an appeal while the respondent filed a revision petition. They were both entrusted to the Court of Mr. Ali Nawaz Chauhan, Additional District Judge, Lahore. Apparently, before him both the parties expressed their willingness to enter into a compromise. In the circumstances, the learned Additional District Judge moved the District Judge for the transfer of the suit to his Court which was duly done. On 4‑9‑1982 learned counsel for the parties made statements before Mr. Ali Nawaz Chauhan, Additional District Judge. On the basis of these statements the petitioner made a request for the withdrawal of the suit. This request was granted. Ordinarily, this should have been the end of the proceedings but this was not to be so.

6. On 24‑11‑1982 the respondent moved an application for the clarification of the order of the learned Additional District Judge and for taking proceedings for contempt against the petitioner. This application was entertained by Mr. Nazir Hussain Awan, Additional District 'Judge who had in the meanwhile succeeded Mr. Ali Nawaz Chuhan as Additional District Judge, Lahore. By an order, dated 7‑2‑1983 the learned Additional District Judge issued two directions, namely; (a) the petitioner (respondent before him) should not interfere with the possession of the respondent in portion A in any manner; and (b) the decree passed on 22‑6‑1982 in the suit relating to mandatory injunction should be corrected in the light of the statement of the respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Additional District Judge has come in revision before this Court.

7. In my opinion both the directions given by the learned Additional District Judge were without jurisdiction. As it would appear from the above narration of facts the only suit that was transferred to the Court of Mr. Ali Nawaz Chauhan, Additional District Judge, related to a challenge to the legality of the orders of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. This suit was withdrawn by the petitioner. There was thus no question of issuing any direction in the nature of a prohibitory injunction to the petitioner in his own suit which he had already withdrawn. As regards the direction for the amendment of the decree passed in the suit relating to the issuance of mandatory injunction, the matter never came to the appellate stage as the suit was decreed on the statement of the respondent himself. An application for the correction of the decree, if at all it lay, could only be made to the Court which had passed the decree. The learned." Additional District Judge could not entertain an application in that regard as it was not the stand of any party that his Court was the successor to the Court of Mr Muhammad Ashraf Bhatti. Thus, the prayer made before him by the respondent was entirely misconceived.

8. For the reasons stated above I would set aside the order of the learned Additional District Judge impugned in this civil revision. The petitioner shall have also his costs from the respondent. H . B . T Revision accepted.