2019 PLP 2538 (YLR)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this revision petition the petitioner, who is plaintiff of a suit for declaration as a consequential relief and in the alternate suit for possession, has challenged the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Attock whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Attock whereby the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff as well as learned Assistant Advocate General Punjab and also gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.

3. No one appeared on behalf of respondents Nos.6 and

7. They are already ex-parte vide order dated 13.04.2017.

4. The brief facts are that plaintiff/ petitioner on 28.09.2007 filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is owner in possession of Khasra No.459 10/480 share measuring 10-marlas situated in Mouza Jassian Tehsil and District Attock in accordance with Jamabandi for the year 2002-03. It is pleaded that it is the stance of defendants Nos.1 and 2 that they are owner of Khasra Nos.471 and 474 owned by the provincial government in possession of police department Attock. They have encroached upon the property owned by the plaintiff, therefore, in the alternate prayer for possession is made. In the written statement it is pleaded that the defendants have nothing to do with Khasra No.459. They are owner in possession of Khasras Nos.469, 470, 471 and 474 under the possession of police department. The plaintiff has nothing to do with Khasras Nos.469, 470, 471 and

474. Learned trial court framed the issues on 16.01.2008 and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the completion of trial suit was dismissed by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 26.04.2010. An appeal was preferred before the learned first appellate court, which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2010. Hence, this civil revision.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/ petitioner has frankly admitted that possession of suit property was taken over by the defendants/respondents, therefore, prayer for possession is made. The prayer for declaration is composite that the plaintiff is owner to the extent of 10-marlas land in Khasra No.459 and in possession of suit property. As per copy of Jamabandi produced by the plaintiff/ petitioner himself as Exh.P-3, Khasra No.459 consists upon 24-kanals of land and plaintiff/petitioner has claimed 10/480 share in the said Khasra number. No specification of property has been mentioned in the plaint nor any site plan was annexed with the plaint. Learned counsel states that specification of property is mentioned in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner which was produced as Exh.P-5. I am afraid it is not sufficient when the plaintiff is claiming for ownership and possession of suit property when the same is not clear, how a decree can be granted in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Further the encroachment by defendant No.2/police department mentioned in the head note of plaint is not identifiable from the pleadings or the evidence of the plaintiff/ petitioner. Admittedly defendant No.1 is owner of Khasras Nos.469, 470, 471 and 474 and it is in possession of police department Attock. Learned counsel has referred Exh.D-3, copy of Aux Shajrah produced by the defendants to show that Khasra No.459 is not adjacent to Khasra numbers claimed by the police department. It confirms the stance of the defendants/respondents and not the plaintiff. When questioned to the learned counsel that whether the defendants/ respondents have taken the possession of his alleged property which is not adjacent to the property owned by the defendants, the answer is in the negative.

6. Furthermore, it is the stance of learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff that at the time of preparation of demarcation report Exh.P-11 on 26.03.2005 he was not associated in those proceedings. When confronted with the learned counsel that whether he has challenged the said report dated 26.03.2005 which was submitted before the court in the suit, the answer is in the negative. In these circumstances, I am unable to understand that when the plaintiff has not challenged the demarcation report, how he can say that said report be taken out of consideration. In this view of the matter, I have no reason to disagree with the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below which are in accordance with the fact and law. Consequently, this civil revision having no merits stands dismissed. ZC/M-124/L Revision dismissed.