' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 20-4-1985 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents. In the plaint, it was stated that they are co-sharers in suit-land measuring two Kanals, six Marlas comprising Khasra No,2137 (North) as per Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1981-82. The father of the respondents took over the possession in the year 1978. A demarcation was conducted and encroachment was found. A decree was accordingly prayed for. On 20-5-1985 the respondents filed a suit against the petitioners. They stated that they had purchased 2 Kanals, 10 Marlas comprising Khasra No,1327/4 as per copy of Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1942-43 (present Khasra No 2137 North) from Naik Alam the father of the petitioners vide Mutation No,3089 attested on 10-2-1943 and possession was delivered and they are continuing in possession. The petitioners have got Fard Badar prepared which is ineffective upon their rights. They accordingly sought a declaration. In the written statement the sale was admitted but it was denied that the present number of the property purchased is not 2137. Both the suits were consolidated. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Vide judgment and decree, dated 27-2-1993 the learned trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners but decreed the suit filed by the respondents. A learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, dismissed the first appeal filed by the petitioners on 16-12-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the learned trial Court had not signed the judgment and decree dated 27-2-1993 and the same stands vitiated. With reference to the evidence on record, he contends that the learned Courts below have acted without jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgments and decrees after holding as a fact that the respondents are in possession of Khasra No,2137 admittedly owned by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgments and decrees with reference to the evidence on record. According to him, non-signing of the judgment was never agitated in the Court of appeal.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have already reproduced the contents of the original pleadings above. I may note here that with the permission of the Court, an amended plaint was filed by the respondents on 15-12-1986. It was explained that the sale was made with reference to the Revenue Record of 1942-43 from Khasra No,1327. The entire Khasra was lying vacant and possession was delivered by Naik Alam in the northern corner of the Khasra.
4, Exh.P.1. Is the copy of Mutation No,3089 whereby Naik Alam who was co-owner in possession sold 2 Kanals, 10 Marlas of land in column of possession of Khasra No,1327 to Fazal Elahi, the predecessorin-interest of the respondents. This sale was incorporated in Register Haqdaran Zamin for the year 1946-47 (Exh.D.4). The said Fazal Elahi was recorded too be in possession of half share of Khasra No,4548/1327. In the same document, Naik Alam was himself in Hisadari possession of Khasra No,4549/1327. Exh.D.6 is the copy of Misal Haqiat prepared upon settlement and Khasra No,4549/1327 was given new Khasra No,2137. It appears that by that time Naik Alam had died and the petitioners had been recorded in possession of the said Khasra number.
5. The learned Additional District Judge has, therefore, very correctly concluded that Naik Alam was the original owner of basic Khasra No,1327 and had sold land to several persons including the respondents and delivered possession. In the absence of any evidence that the petitioners were dispossessed as alleged by them after possession had been delivered back to them by the respondents, the conclusion that the respondents, in fact, were delivered possession of the land which was in their possession by Naik Alam is fully supported on record.
6. So far as the non-signing of judgment by the learned trial Court is concerned, nothing turns on the same. The learned counsel for the respondents has very rightly pleaded that no objection was raised or prejudice was claimed in the course of first appeal when the petitioners themselves were the appellants. It is apparent on the face of the present record that the decree sheet was duly signed and the copy of order sheet is also present mentioning the factum of the said decision and bearing the signatures. In any case, it was observed by this Court in the case of Makhan Singh and others v. Wadawa Singh and others AIR 1934 Lah. 763 with reference to the case of Fort Gloster Jute Manufacturing Co. v: Chandra Kumar Das 1920 Cal. 597 that the infringement of the procedure prescribed by Order XX, rules 1, 2 and 3, C.P.C. Merely constitutes an irregularity curable by consent or waiver and it affords no ground for reversal of the decree based on the judgment irregularly pronounced where the irregularity is waived by the parties and does not affect the merits of the case.
7. Before parting with this judgment, I may note here that notwithstanding the said sales and carving out of the several Khasras numbers, as detailed in document Exh.D.4, all these Khasras numbers fell in the same Khata. This being so, the matter had to be resolved finally in a suit for partition to be filed by any of the recorded co-sharers.
8. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.