2005 PLP 1103 (SCMR)

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑--Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 30‑4‑2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, accepted Civil Revision No. 1190 of 1992 filed by the respondents by setting aside the judgment, dated 21‑6‑1992 of the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, and maintained the judgment, dated 20‑12‑1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Wazirabad. The facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the respondents purchased House No.C‑197, situated in Street Kohlianwali, Wazirabad, through a registered sale‑deed on 21‑10‑1984 from the legal heirs of one Abdul Aziz. The petitioners/defendants forcibly took possession of the disputed room, whereupon the respondents were constrained to file a suit for declaration claiming possession. This suit was resisted by the petitioners/defendants. Issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned trial Judge, after thrashing the entire evidence brought on record, decreed the suit through his judgment, dated 20‑12‑1990 declaring the disputed room being part of the above house purchased by the respondents. The petitioners filed an appeal assailing the above judgment, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, vide his judgment, dated 21‑6‑1992 setting aside the determination of the trial Court. The respondents filed the aforesaid civil revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been accepted by a learned Single Judge, through his judgment, dated 30‑4‑2002, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the entire material placed on record. We have noticed that the respondents purchased the property in dispute through a registered sale‑deed on 21‑10‑1984. Admittedly, the petitioners have secured property No.C‑198 as reflected from the' documents placed on record. The property No.C‑197 consists of six rooms and through confidence‑inspiring evidence it has been proved that the sixth room is the disputed one which is part and parcel of the property purchased by the respondents. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has taken pains in examining the entire record It would be appropriate to reproduce his determination in this regard which is in the following terms:‑‑ "4 Since the two judgments arc at variance, this Court has to appraise evidence to come to a conclusion. An examination of P.4, the site plan sanctioned in the year 1932 slows that the disputed room is part of House No.C‑197 as structurally the room is attached to the main portion of the construction. In fact learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute this fact. His contention has been that the disputed room was declared separate house after partition and was disposed of by the Settlement Department as such. If this be so there has to be some order of competent Settlement Officer declaring the disputed room to be an independent house. No such order is on file. Copy of the Survey Register (Exh.P.3) further shows that House No C. 198 consists of number of portions, possessed by different persons. It also shows that the two houses namely C‑197 and C‑198 belonged to different evacuee owners. The conclusion is inevitable that disputed room all along belonged to an remained an integral part of House No.C‑

197. The reasoning advanced by learned trial Court are more plausible than the one adopted by the learned Appellate Court. The Appellate Court has clearly exercised its jurisdiction irregularly.

5. This revision is allowed. The appellate judgment and decree is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored." Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave declined. M.H./Q‑13/S Petition dismissed.