2011 PLP 597 (MLD)

SHER MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.

Impugned here are the judgments/decrees passed by learned District Judge, D.I.Khan on 15-2-2006 in R.C.A. No.14 of 2005 vide which the judgment/decree passed by learned Civil Judge, D.I.Khan on 24-6-2005 in Civil Suit No.174/1 was maintained and suit and appeal of the petitioner were dismissed.

2. Short background of the litigation between the parties is that petitioner instituted a suit in the trial Court against respondents for recovery of Rs.24,000 .as damages/compensation for wheat and gram crops for the years 1998-99 and 2000, which according to petitioner respondents Nos. 1 to 12 had forcibly taken away from his land bearing Khasra Nos.403 and 404 situated in Wanda Lohani Tehsil Paharpur District D.I.Khan.

3. Claim of petitioner was that he and pro-forma respondents Nos.13 and 14 are in possession of their land which was cultivated by them and wheat and gram crops were sown therein. Respondents Nos. 1 to 12 are hardened and desperate persons who forcibly took away their crops from the land worth of Rs.24,

000. It was further alleged that petitioner lodged report in Police Station, Penyala on 29-4-2000 but did not get any relief.

4. Respondents contested the suit and raised so many legal objections and denied the claim of petitioner on factual side. Learned trial Court reduced the divergent pleadings of the parties to as many as nine issues including the relief. After providing full opportunity for leading their respective evidence the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide judgment/decree dated 24-6-2005 and appeal filed by petitioner before the District Judge, D.I.Khan also did not succeed, hence the instant revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the judgments/decrees passed by learned Courts below are based on wrong appreciation of evidence. He also argued that the appellate Court did not discuss each and every issue separately and violated the mandatory provisions of Civil Procedure Code.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents added that khasra girdawari in respect of Khasra No.404 shows that Shadi Khan is exclusively in possession and petitioner has no concern whatsoever with this khasra number. Petitioner is shown jointly in possession with Shadi Khan in Khasra No.403. It is pertinent to mention here that Shadi Khan is predecessor in interest of respondents Nos.13 and 14 but they did not file any suit against respondents Nos.1 to

12. Even they did not appear as witnesses in support of petitioner's claim.

7. From perusal of the record it is proved that Khasra No.403 is jointly in possession of petitioner and Shadi Khan while Khasra No.404 is exclusively in possession of Shadi Khan. The same entry is entered in khasra girdawari Exh.P.W.1/2. Petitioner failed to produce an iota of evidence to prove the quantity of wheat and gram crops and even did not prove its value. There is no evidence against respondents Nos.1 to 12 that they have taken the crops of wheat and gram from the fields.

8. Petitioner had to prove his ownership, possession and cultivation over the disputed properties and it was also his burden to prove that on particular date respondents have taken the crops from the fields by force or other illegal means. The petitioner utterly failed to discharge any of the above mentioned burdens.

9. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of petitioner on 24-6-2005 and the appeal oft petitioner also met the same fate.

10. Revisional jurisdiction is very limited and I did not see any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the judgments of the two courts below, therefore, see no valid reason for acceptance of the instant revision petition, hence it is dismissed with no order as to costs. S.A.K./425/P Revision dismissed.