' MUHAMMAD AFZAL SOOMRO, J.---Present revision application has come against the concurrent findings dated 19-8-2003 by VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South along with Civil Appeal No,5 of 2000 of respondents Nos.1(i) to (vii) filed against the judgment dated 16-11-1999 decreeing their Civil Suit No,1062 of 1996.
2. The facts of the case are that deceased Mst. Zarin Fatima purchased Shop No,98 admeasuring 644.49 square feet on the ground floor of a building situated on Plot No,24, Sheet BR-3, Bunder Quarters, New Neham Road Market Road, Karachi, vide registered conveyance deed dated 15-6- 1987. The property was also mutated in her name.
3. That the premises adjacent to the abovementioned shop belongs to respondent No,1 and was let out to respondent No,2.
' When applicant brought proper measurement of the premises it was found that an area of 50 Sq.
Feet is in possession of respondents on which they have constructed a bathroom.
4. Applicant approached the respondent No,1 for possession of disputed portion and matter was settled through an agreement dated 22-1-1995. Respondent No,1 admitted the possession of 50 sq.
Feet A being the property of applicant.
5. That despite admission of the claim of applicant respondent No,1 did not hand over the possession of the disputed portion of 50 sq. Feet.
6. After exchange of legal notices, the applicants filed a Civil Suit No,1062 of 1996 in the Court of IVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, South for declaration and possession. Suit was contested and written statement of respondents are filed.
7. The respondent No,2 in his written statement has denied the claim of applicant on the ground that disputed bathroom was acquired by him under tenancy.
8. The respondent No,1 in his written statement has admitted that applicant purchased the shop having measurements as 644.49 sq. Ft. He further submits that applicant has violated the terms of agreement as he covered more area in the building which was owned by respondent No,l.
9. On pleadings of the parties, five issues were settled by the trial Court on 25-2-1998. Parties led their evidence. Copies of their depositions are filed herewith as Annexures E, F and G.
10. Learned VIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South after hearing the parties decreed the Suit on 16-11- 1999. Copy of judgment is filed herewith as Annexure. H.
11. Respondent No,1 filed Civil Appeal No,5 of 2000 aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment. The appeal was heard by the VIIth Additional District Judge, Karachi South, which was allowed and the suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 19-8-2003. Certified copy of judgment is [B filed herewith as Annexure I.
12. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied the applicants submit that the judgment of learned Appellate Court suffers from legal infirmities and is not sustainable in law.
13. I have heard at length Mr. Shehenshah Hussain, Advocate, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nasir, Mahmood, Advocate for respondent, in the light of the material on file.
14. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the learned Appellate Court misread the evidence and came to conclusion that the judgment and decree of the trial Court was liable to be set aside.
15. He also submitted that respondent No,1 in Para 4 of his written statement admitted the contents of agreement dated 22-1-1995 and it is principle of law that a fact which is admitted need not to be proved. Learned Appellate Court acted illegally by holding that the said agreement. Was a fake, frivolous and bogus document.
16. In addition to the above he urged that respondent No,1 alleged violation of the terms of the agreement without specifying the same in his written statement or in his cross-examination.
Respondent No,1 failed to prove any violation and the learned Additional District Judge acted with material irregularity and allowed the appeal.
17. Lastly learned counsel for the applicant submitted that learned Court has not given any valid reason in setting aside the judgment and decree which was passed by the Senior Civil Judge.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned VIIth Additional District Judge failed to apply its mind on the facts and circumstances of the case. He has further argued that the learned Judge has not considered the plea taken by the appellant and misread the evidence. The learned trial Judge has ignored the report of the Commissioner who has submitted the measurement of the area and according to him the area of the bathroom is not same as claimed by the applicants.
19. In view of above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the applicants have not been able to make out a case in their favour as the agreement was not signed by the deceased applicant herself in presence of witnesses. For the foregoing reasons I find no grounds for interference. The revision application being devoid of force is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Revisio . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.