' MUHAMMA D Q A IM JAN KHAN, J.---This is a revision petition under section 115, C.P.C. Against the order of Additional District Judge-III, Swabi dated 20-6-2006 vide which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court dated 16-2-2004 has been upheld.
2. Short facts of the case are that Qasim Khan instituted a suit against Hukam Khan, the present petitioner, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Swabi for eviction of the respondent from a house measuring 6 Marlas details of which are given in the headings of the plaint. In prayer (B), the plaintiff asked for recovery of Rs.1500 as "Khakshora" for the last three years and in the alternative, suit for possession of the house measuring 6 Marlas as detailed in the headings, It is further alleged in the plaint that petitioner is the owner of the suit house measuring 6 Marlas and defendant is a tenant under him on payment of "Khakshora". That defendant used to pay the "Khakshora" to the plaintiff but for the last three years, the defendant has stopped the payment of "Khakshora" and has occupied the suit house without any payment. That "Khakshora" of the last-three years amounting to Rs.1500 is due from the defendant and he was asked several times to hand over possession and to pay the "Khakshora" to the plaintiff but he refused, so the present suit.
3. Defendant appeared in Court and vehemently contested the suit by filing his written statement alleging that he purchased the suit house from the father of the plaintiff vide deeds dated 1-4-1968 and 2-4-1960.
4, On the divergent pleas of the respective parties, the trial Court framed almost thirteen issues apart from relief. Evidence pro and contra was recorded and after hearing the respective counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the trial Judge by his judgment and decree dated 16-2- 2004 accepted the claim of the plaintiff and passed an order of ejectment against the defendant/petitioner from the suit house. However, the plaintiff shall pay an amount of Rs.2,85,320 as costs of improvement.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and decree, the petitioner Hukam Khan preferred appeal in the Court of Additional District Judge-III, Swabi and the said Court after hearing the respective counsel for the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs vide his order dated 26-6-2006. Hence this revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly argued that respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the entire house and that Revenue Record has not been thrashed properly. Further argued that petitioner has become owner of the suit house by purchase from the father of the plaintiff vide sale-deeds dated 1-4-1968 and 2-4-1960 and that the two Courts have not appraised the available evidence on the record.
7. I have heard counsel for the ,petitioner at length and have also heard counsel for the 'respondent who is present on pre-admission notice.
8. A bare perusal of the Revenue Record shows that plaintiff is owner of the suit house and defendant is in possession of the disputed house. The defendant has desperately failed to prove his alleged purchase of the suit house from the father of the plaintiff. The sale deeds are neither registered nor executed between the contesting parties. It is also not clear whether these deeds pertain to the suit house or otherwise. This factum is of no help to the present petitioner whether the plaintiff is the owner of the entire house or not as the other people allegedly to be co-sharers with the plaintiff have not come to the Court despite the delayed litigation. So the contention of the petitioner holds no ground. On the other hand, he poses himself as the owner by purchase which he has not proved by cogent evidence.
9. Therefore, on all these scores, the revision petition in hand having no legal .Force is hereby dismissed in limine.
Revision petition dismissed.