2011 MLD 1527 (PLP)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

This civil revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-8-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Attock who dismissed the appeal of petitioners in limine and maintained the judgment and decree of learned trial court.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents filed a suit for declaration, mandatory and perpetual injunction in respect of suit land measuring 35 kanals 6 Marlas fully described in the plaint. During pendency of the suit, on 14-2-2002 the parties along with their counsel signed a consenting offer that a referee be appointed who may visit the site in presence of the parties and if referee hold that petitioners have encroached upon the suit land, they will accept the verdict of referee and will accordingly remove the encroachment and handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit land to the respondents.

3. The learned trial Court after recording the statement of the parties got the statement signed by the parties as well as their learned counsel vide order dated 14-2-2002 and appointed Malik Noor Tehsildar, Pindi Gheb as a referee to visit the suit land in presence of parties and report that there is any encroachment or not.

4. That the referee visited the disputed land in presence of the parties and reported that petitioners have encroached upon a portion of suit land and also prepared 'Naqsha Tajawaz', so in the light of report of Malik Noor Khan, Tehsildar, Pindi Gheb, learned trial court decreed the suit of respondents.

5. Feeling dis-satisfied the petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed on 13-8-2002 by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock, hence this civil revision.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that learned trial court has travelled beyond its jurisdiction, therefore, impugned judgment and decree passed by learned trial court is not sustainable in the eye of law, the report of local commission could not be made the base of fate of a case when evidence is otherwise and the stance of petitioners are fully proved from the record. The petitioners are in possession of within their share, therefore, civil revision be accepted, impugned judgments and decree passed by both the learned courts below be set aside and suit of respondents be dismissed.

7. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this civil revision and has contended that there are concurrent finding of two courts below which could not be interfered in the civil revision as petitioners have failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment.

8. Arguments heard. Record perused.

9. When confronted with the order dated 14-2-2002, learned counsel for the petitioners has not denied the statement of Faiz Muhammad, the signatures of parties as well as their counsel on the consenting statements, whereby with the mutual consent of the parties, Malik Noor Khan, Tehsildar, Pindi Gheb was appointed as referee/local commission. Thereafter, the report submitted by Malik Noor Khan, Tehsildar, Pindi Gheb amounts to a consent decree because statement of parties to the effect that referee/local commission visit the site, and matter be decided on his findings amounted to an agreement, the referee was relegated to the position of arbitrator and his decision amounted a consent decree. Relied on case-law titled Muhammad Rashid and 3 others v. Murad Khan through L.Rs., reported as (1997 CLC 1763). The learned Additional District Judge, Attock vide his judgment dated 13-8-2002 had rightly dismissed the appeal of petitioners in limine. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment.

10. Resultantly, this civil revision is devoid of any merits. No interference is called for, same is dismissed. S.A.K./M-827/L Revision dismissed.