MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN, J.-- This civil revision assails judgment and decrees dated 6-3-2003 and 15-7-2003 passed by learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot respectively deciding lis against the petitioner
2. Precisely, relevant facts are that respondents No. 1 and 2 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 12 claiming that ownership over two plots measuring 5 marlas and 4 marlas as per boundaries given in the plaint, situated within the review estate of Bonkan. Tehsil and District Sialkot. They pleaded that their plots bear Khasra No. 615 Khewat No. 62 Khatoni No. 246 as those were purchased by them through two registered sale- deeds dated 3-12-1980. Respondents No.1 and 2 further asserted in their plaint that they are owners in possession of the plots but petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 12 have threatened to encroach upon their land, by show of force. According to respondent No. 1 and 2 petitioner and respondents No. 3 to 12 had no such right, title or interest in the land in possession of the respondents /plaintiff.
3. Petitioner being a defendant in the suit contested it by filing his written statement and pleaded that no doubt respondents No. 1 and 2 have purchased Khasra No. 615 but boundaries mentioned in the plaint relate to Khasra No. 624 owned by him. Petitioner also undertook that he has no design to interfere into possession of Khasra No.615 owned by respondent No. 1 and 2. Controversial pleading of the parties necessitated framing of issues and recording of evidence. The learned trial Judge, who was seized of the matter, in view of a controversy involved between the parties, which related to demarcation of properties, appointed a Local Commissioner, who visited the spot and submitted his report favouring respondents No. 1 and 2 because the Local Commissioner observed that land mentioned in the plaint bears Khasra No. 615. This report of the Local Commissioner was subject to objections by the petitioner and the Local Commissioner was examined as PW 1. Those objections were not disposed of and at the same time report of the Local Commissioner was neither confirmed nor was rejected on the objections of the petitioner, but inspite of it, it was heavily relied by the trial Court while decreeing the suit of respondents No. 1 and 2 vide judgment and decree dated 3-6-2003.
4. Petitioner aggrieved of the decision of the trial Court dated 3-6-2003 filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge raising specific objections with regard to report of the Local Commissioner, but there again he remained unsuccessful as his appeal was dismissed on 15-7-2003 without redress of his grievance regarding determination of his objections to the report of the Local Commissioner (Exh.P.1). He has now come up in revisional jurisdiction of this Court for setting aside the above referred two judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Respondents No. 1 and 2 in response to notice by this Court are represented through their counsel, whereas respondents No. 3 to 12 who appear to be perform a respondents have opted not to appear despite service and repeated calls in the case, hence they are produced against ex parte.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below have incorrectly not adverted to objection to the report of the Local Commissioner (Exh-P-1) and without decision of these objections, report of the Local Commissioner could not have been relied upon. He further submits the statement of PW-1 clearly demonstrated that instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner contained in High Court Rules and Orders were not followed while demarcating the land in question and in this manner no proper measurements were done at the spot. It has also been contended that the only controversy, which hinged between the parties is whether the boundaries mentioned by respondents No 1 and 2 in their plaint relate to Khasra No. 615 purchased by them or to Khasra No. 624 owned by the petitioner, but this controversy remained undecided, in an unlawful manner. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that without confirming report of the Local Commissioner; it could not have been based upon for decision of the suit.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 has supported the judgments/decrees impugned and denied the assertions of the petitioner, besides urging that the objections of the petitioner were frivolous and baseless, hence required no determination.
According to him, no doubt, measurements were not done according to the instructions of the Financial Commissioner but those were undertaken correctly in presence of the petitioner, without any objection from him. It has also been contended on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 that reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner has the effect of confirming the report and there was no necessity to pass any specific order in this behalf. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 further submitted that according to Revenue Record land bearing Khasra No. 615 was owned by respondents No. 1 and 2 wherewith petitioner has no right or title. He also relied on the admission of the petitioner where-under he undertook not to interfere into the land owned by respondents No. 1 and 2.
His precise assertions that after undertaking by the petitioner, he is estopped to file instant revision petition.
7. I have anxiously considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record, appended herewith. Case of the petitioner was that respondents No.1 and 2 are owners of two plots measuring 5 marlas and 4 marlas failing in Khasra No. 615 but the land, boundaries of which have been given in para 1 -A (a-b) of the plaint, is owned by him. This controversy could only be resolved through demarcation and the trial Court adopted a rightful procedure by appointing a Local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 CPC. Petitioner had raised objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, which were duly replied by his adversaries through two different replies. On objections by the petitioner, the Local Commissioner was examined as PW-1. After this exercise, it was obligatory for the trial Court under Order XXVI Rule 10(3) CPC to decide objections to the report of the Local Commissioner, one way or the other, and while doing so, to confirm it or if dissatisfied for any reason, to direct such further inquiry as may be necessary, in the circumstances of the case. My this view gets support from the cases of Ahmad Hossain alias Tipu Mia vs. Abdus Samad Shah and others (PLD 1967 Dacca 774) Mt. Mariam and another vs. Mt. Amina and others (AIR 1937 Allahabad 65).
8. It is obvious from the express language of rule 10 of Order XXVI CPC that without adjudication of objections to the report, without accepting or turning down those objections and without confirmation of the report of the Local Commissioner, it could not have been relied for the decision and for this purpose, trial Court was needed to apply its conscious judicial mind and to pass a specific order thereon. Undeniably, no such exercise was taken by the trial Court and an unconfirmed report of the Local Commissioner was banked upon for the impugned decision. Similarly appellate Court has not adverted to this aspect of the case inspite of specific objections in the memo. Of appeal. Since the dispute between the parties was not resolved in a lawful manner, I am left with no other option except to set aside both the judgments and decrees dated 3-6-2003 and 15-72003 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot respectively, which for the reasons noted above, are done with material irregularities and illegalities inviting invocation of revisional jurisdiction by this Court.
This revision petition is consequently accepted and the above referred judgments and decrees are set aside with the result that suit of the respondents No. 1 and 2 will be deemed to be pending before the trial Court who will decide it afresh after deciding the fate of the report of the Local Commissioner by the adjudication on the objections raised there against by the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23-2-2004. .