2013 PLP 995 (MLD)

CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.

Through this single order both the Civil Revision No.2531 of 2001 and Civil Revision No.1411 of 2002 are being disposed of as identical question of law and facts are involved therein.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners of Mauza Bambool Tehsil Noorpur District Khushab and the property in dispute measuring 215 kanals 4 marlas is a part of Shamlat which are in possession of the plaintiffs and the rectangles Nos.56 to 58, 130 to 132 allegedly situated in Rakh Burana were not in existence, rather those were fabricated out of the Shamlat deh and the respondents had no right whatsoever to claim over the same. 2(sic) Defendants/petitioners appeared before the learned trial court and contested the suit by tooth and nail. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties learned trial court framed the necessary issues. Both the parties got recorded their oral as well as documentary evidence. Ultimately learned trial court dismissed the suit of the respondents vide judgment and decree dated 14-1-1999. They preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned Appellate Court and their suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree petitioners have filed the instant Civil revision.

3. Learned Additional Advocate-General contends that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge Khushab is against law and facts and also based upon misreading and non reading of evidence. Further states that learned Appellate Court has not complied with the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31, C.P.C. while passing the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos.28 and 29 has adopted the arguments advanced by learned A.A.-G.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents argued that the learned Appellate Court has taken into consideration all the important aspects of the case while deciding the matter in issue. Further argued that Provincial Government has no concern with the property in dispute because the same is Shamlat Deh and is in possession of the respondents since long.

5. Heard. Record perused.

6. Undeniably, documents Exh.D.5, Exh.D.6 and Exh.D.7, produced by the petitioners/defendants before the learned trial court have not been taken into consideration by the learned 1st Appellate Court while deciding the matter in issue. Another important aspect of the case was that either the property in dispute is situated in village Bambool or in mouza Rakh Burrana, this fact has also not been properly decided by the learned Appellate Court. Provisions of Under Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. have also not been complied with. Hence, without touching the merits of the case both the Civil Revisions are allowed. Impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is set aside. Case is remanded to the learned 1st Appellate Court with a direction to decide the same afresh after taking into consideration all the abovementioned points in accordance with law. It is pertinent to mention here that learned Appellate Court will provide an opportunity to all the parties to produce evidence to prove the fact that where the property in dispute is actually situated? If any party intends to do so. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Judge Khushab on 15-3-2012. KMZ/P-8/L Case remanded.