1985 PLP 643 (SCMR)

SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑ The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 4‑6‑1980 whereby a civil revision filed by them against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court was dismissed in limine.

2. The predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was transferred evacuee house No.C‑35/A situated in Bhakkar, District Mianwali. The respondents' predecessor‑in‑interest was also transferred a house No. C‑34 in the same locality. The respondents filed a suit in the civil Court alleging that the petitioners had forcibly occupied their house and raised construction over it. The controversy and the dispute in the trial Court centered around the identity, extent and the ownership of the property in dispute of the petitioners as C‑35/A. The trial Court appointed the Settlement Inspector as a local Commissioner and after receipt of his report and inviting objections to it and considering it along with the other aevidence, the trial Court concluded that the room indicated as A.G.D.H. is C‑34 of the plaintiffs which the defendant had illegally included in his Property C‑35/A. The petitioners' appeal and revision against this finding were not successful. Hence this petition for special leaves to appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the local Commissioner had exceeded his mandate by recording a finding on matters not entrusted to him and his report ought not to be made the basis of adjudication.' Besides, according to the learned counsel it was not at all the case of the respondents that any portion of their property had been amalgamated or converted into Property C‑35/A. There was on the record, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, other documentary evidence to establish that the petitioners were in possession of no more than they were entitled under the law.

4. We find that the dispute between the parties was confined to the identity of the property transferred to each or in other words its demarcation. The appointment of local Commissioner for the purpose was quite proper for getting the property inspected at the spot, and for getting an independent factual view on the controversy. The objections were invited to the report and were considered along with the other evidence on the record in coming to the conclusion that a particular portion of the Property C‑34 was, in fact, in occupation of the petitioners. It appears to us that in such a case neither the appointment of the local Commissioner nor the consideration of his report can be successfully made an object of attack. Besides, the controversy being factual and raising no question of law to be considered by this Court it is not a fit case for grant of leave. We find that the Courts dealing with the matter have taken all the relevant material into consideration and they have drawn inferences which could reasonably be drawn from it. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. M.I.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.