' SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.-Civil Revision No. 1519 of 2005 arises from the judgment dated 27th of January, 2005, whereby, the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha dismissed the appeal calling in question the order dated 6th of February, 2003 by means of which civil Judge Sargodha dismissed petitioner's contempt application and the objection petition.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the captioned civil revision are that Riaz Ahmed/respondent No.l filed a suit for declaration and possession against Abdul Ghani etc. In respect of the land measuring 10 Marlas, wherein the presept petitioner was not impleaded as a party to the said proceedings. Said suit was decreed on 11- 3-1996 which attained finality. Execution proceedings were initiated,, warrant of possession issued and apparently executed. Petitioner filed an objection petition thereto inter alia on the ground that she was in possession of the plot in question in her own right and not through the defendants/judgment-debtor of the decree. Said objection petition was contested, issues were framed, evidence led whereafter the executing Court vide its order dated 27-1-2005 dismissed the objection petition. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal which failed to find favour and dismissed by means of order sought to be impugned herein.
3. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record appended herewith perused. In pith and substance, the dispute inter se the parties is only to the extent whether warrant of possession has been executed against the property in respect whereof suit filed by respondent No.l had been decreed. Said property has been described in the plaint in the said suit and it was also specifically mentioned that decree dated 11-3-1996 qua 10 Marlas, 23 Sq. Ft. Land forming part of 25 Marlas plot in Khewat No. 116, Square No.40 and Kila No.3 being 6800/44880 share of 81/4 Kanals of land.
Boundaries of the said plot are also mentioned both in the plaint and the decree executed.
Petitioner claims to be in possession of the plot of land measuring 10 Marlas being part of Khewat No. 139, Khatooni 315 Square No.40' Kila No.3 being 2720/44880 share of 8 Kanals and 4 Marlas situated in same Chak having purchased the same through sale deed dated 21-12-1999 from one Nadeem Afzal, the boundaries of the plot allegedly purchased by the petitioner also mentioned in the said sale-deed which are quite different from the land mentioned in the decreed in execution.
4. A decree for possession can obviously be executed in respect of the land B to which it pertained.
The exercise required of the Courts below was to ascertain/ establish whether the property in respect whereof decree had been executed was in . Fact the property to which the said decree pertained. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the description of the property in the decree reproduced above, this exercise is only possible by identifying the property in the context of the revenue record through the process of demarcation.
5. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the evidence on record. No exercise appears to have been undertaken which conclusively establishes whether the property against which decree was executed was in fact the suit property. Learned counsel for the respondents has been unable to show any piece of documentary evidence in this behalf. Perusal of impugned judgment also reveals that no such evidence has been referred to in this behalf.
Evidently, the real matter in controversy has escaped adjudication by the two Courts below. In this view of the matter, both the judgments impugned of the Courts below cannot be sustained.
Consequently, order dated 6-2-2003 and the appellate judgment of the Additional District Judge Sargodha dated 27-1-2005 are set aside. Case is remanded to the executing Court for decision afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence if any.
' Petition accepted in the terms reflected ibid.