1999 PLP 1923 (MLD)

(1) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD (2) Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of preliminary objection No.2 of the written statement ? OPD (3) Whether the plaintiff has not come to this Court with clean hands and as such is not entitled to any relief ? OPD (4) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious, if so the defendants are entitled to special costs and its extent? OPD (5) Whether the defendants are under obligation to restore the closed well and to reconstruct the demolished bath room a new? OPP (6) Relief.

4. In support of his claim plaintiff examined P.W.1 Puran, P.W.2 Abdul Latif and appeared himself as P.W.3. In rebuttal defendants examined D.W.1 Muhammad Hanif, D.W.2 Ch. Muhammad Sharif and one of the defendants/respondents Mushtaq Ahmad appeared as D.W.3.

5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 19-11-1991. The plaintiff/ petitioner felt aggrieved of the said judgment and decree and filed appeal which was heard and disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, Narowal who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree under revision.

6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

7. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is evident from the statement of the plaintiff/petitioner that he had purchased the land and had been using the well as well as bathroom attached to it for the last 60/65 years, as such had acquired right of easement and defendants/respondents could not stop the working of that well and could also not demolish the bath room attached therewith.

8. A perusal of the statement of the plaintiff/petitioner clearly shows that he had purchased only land and had not purchased any well-installed therein. He further admits that the said well and bathroom attached therewith, had been in the use of Abdullah, Muhammad Ismail, Noor Muhammad, Muhammad Siddique, Abdul Hameed and Allah Rakha and others. However, it is fact that none of these persons had been produced by the plaintiff/petitioner in support of his contention. He has produced Revenue Record consisting of Jamabandi 1984-85 Exh.P-1, copy of Mutation No.2140 Exh.P-2, copy of Mutation No.2141 Exh.P-3, copy of the plaint of previous suit Exh.P-4 and order- dated 26-2-1987 Exh.P-5. All these documents reveal that plaintiff/petitioner has no concern with the small well and bathroom. On the other hand, evidence adduced by defendants/respondents proves that the well and bathroom had been in the use of inhabitants of the villages about 30/32 years ago. But now, since the water supply scheme has been introduced, none has been using the said small well and bath room and the same are inoperative since long. Thus, no cause of grievance was available either to the plaintiff/petitioner or any other member of the village.

9. In the light of facts narrated above, it is clear that both the Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees in accordance with law. There is no misreading or non-reading of evidence on their part. There is no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-743/L Revision petition dismissed.