' MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, J.---The respondent/plaintiff Riasat Ali claiming to be the owner of agricultural land described in the plaint, filed his suit on 24-11-1992 for recovery of damages and compensation against the petitioners. It was pleaded by the respondent/plaintiff that the irrigation source for his land was Rajbah 8/R Gratian Mouga No.16000/L and water bed thereof passed through the land of the petitioner/defendants who illegally and unlawfully demolished the same and thus deprived the respondent from sowing crop during Kharif 1991 to Kharif 1992 and thus causing financial loss to the respondent which was recoverable as compensation from the petitioners through a decree of the Court.
2. Contesting written statement was filed by the petitioners. The learned Civil Judge thereupon framed eight issues: Evidence was recorded. The suit was initially decided by the learned trial Judge through judgment and decree dated 31-7-1997 which on appeal was set aside and on remand was re-decided by the learned trial Judge through judgment and decree dated 29-10- 1999 awarding a decree to the respondent for recovery of Rs.1,500. This decree is subject-matter of Civil Revision No.2034 of 2001. Identical decrees were passed against the petitioners respectively for recovery of Rs.4,500 (the subject-matter of Civil Revision No.2035 of 2001) and for Rs.7,500 (the subject-matter of Civil Revision No.2036 of 2001). Three appeals were filed by the petitioners. These appeals were dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian through separate judgments and decrees dated 14-6-2001. Hence the present civil revisions.
3. The questions of fact and law involved in the above civil revisions are the same and the identical impugned judgments and decrees have been passed by the learned subordinate Courts respectively against the petitioners wherefor all these civil revisions are decided together.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the learned Courts below misread the evidence and failed to consider the admitted facts that there was no sanctioned Khaal beyond Square Nos.19-20 as admitted by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and demonstrated through Exh.P.1 wherefor the petitioners were entitled to change or modify the private Khaals falling within their land. And such modification including demolition of the private Khaals did not vest cause of action in the plaintiff/ respondents to seek recovery of damages or compensation on any account whatsoever.
5. Despite service, the respondents did not appear to prosecute the present civil revisions wherefor they were proceeded against ex parte through order dated 14-9-2005 and the case was ordered to be listed for ex parte arguments which have been heard today.
6. On considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I find substance in his argument that the respondents/plaintiffs opting not to join the proceedings of these Civil revisions, despite service, admit the case of the petitioners for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees. I also find that the learned Additional District Judge decided the appeals of the petitioners without adverting to, dealing with and evaluating the evidence of the parties on record. The learned Additional District Judge recorded the general observation that "...From the evidence available on the record, it has been proved that the Khaal irrigating the land belonging to the respondents was there and further that it was demolished by the respondents." The learned first Appellate Court was 'obligated under the law to re-analyze and re-appreciate the evidence on record for rendering an appellate judgment. The failure of the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian to discuss the depositions of the witnesses and the documentary evidence produced by the parties renders his impugned judgment and decree dated 14-6-2001 unsustainable for exercising the appellate jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.
7. Adverting to the judgment and decree dated 29-10-1999 of the learned Civil Judge, Kharian, it is to be noted that the learned Civil Judge specifically recorded in his judgment under Issue No.5 that there was no sanctioned Khaal, yet the petitioner defendants had no authority to demolish the same unlawfully.
Furthermore, under Issue No.6, the learned Civil Judge observed that none of the parties produced Khasra Girdawari to show cultivation or non-cultivation of the crop on the disputed land. Despite these observations, the learned Civil Judge proceeded to pass decree for recovery of damages and compensation against the petitioners on mere presumption that had the crop been cultivated, it would have earned certain returns on Acre basis. The learned trial Judge thus passed his impugned judgment and decree on the basis of presumptions and extraneous consideration without settling the basic question as to whether in the absence of a sanctioned Khaal, the respondent/plaintiffs had a vested right to have access from the private Khaal of the petitioners or not.
8, Furthermore, without adjudicating the effect of non-production of Khasra Girdawari, the learned Civil Judge could not have passed the impugned judgment and decree.
9.I am impelled to record that the parties had been litigating for recovery of meagre amounts of damages since 1991-92 and remained involved in two major rounds of litigation thereupon over insubstantial disputes. The parties had their sWords drawn for 14/15 years. Their valuable resources in terms of time and money were strained and wasted. The lis therefore needs to be brought to an end and the parties to be untied from fruitless wrangling e. Costlier than the subject-matter of the suits.
10. In view of above discussion, the impugned judgments and decrees dated 10-1999 and 14-6-2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kharian and the learned Additional District Judge, Kharian are set aside. The civil revisions are accepted with no order as to the costs.