' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---This case has a chequered history. On 29-3-1989 the petitioner filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint, it was stated that the petitioner owns Property No.P-173 along with others while respondent is owner of Property No.P-172 along with others. Both the properties are separated by a common passage in the form of a street. The respondent was allowed to occupy a room with a part of courtyard of property No.P-173 as shown in red colour in the annexed plan and he promised to vacate the same on demand but instead of vacating the same on demand, he constructed another room. Thereafter he filed a suit against the petitioner claiming easement in the said property No.P-173 which was dismissed on 14-3-1989. The co-owners of Property No.P-173 had been litigating regarding a joint courtyard which was decided and the respondent figures nowhere. Similarly, order dated 21-1-1970 of DSC contains a list of owners of the Property No.P-173 and the respondent is not included. Similarly, according to survey report, conducted by the Settlement Department, the respondent is shown to be a transferee of two rooms in the ground floor arid one room in the upper floor of Property No.P-172. Property No.P-173 comprises of Khasra No.1824/2 while Property No.P-172 comprises of Khasra No.1824/1. With these.
Averments, a decree for possession of the said suit property as depicted in the plaint, was sought.
In his written statement, the respondent admitted that the petitioner is one of the transferees of Property No.P-173 whereas he is one of the transferees of Property No. P-172. He also admitted the existence of the said common passage separating the two properties. His case was that he is owner of the suit property mentioned in the plaint where he has also constructed a room. Following issues were framed by the learned trial court:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff lacks locus standi to file this suit?
(2) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
(3) Whether the suit is false and vexatious and the defendant is entitled to compensatory costs u/s. 35-A CPC?
(4) Whether the suit property is owned by the defendant?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of the suit property?
(6) Whether the disputed property is share of property No.-173 and Property No .P-172 has joint courtyard?
(7) Whether the defendant is in possession as licensee in the disputed property and has constructed room illegally and is liable to be ejected?
(8) Relief.
' Evidence of the parties was recorded. The suit was dismissed on 22-12-1991. On appeal, it was remanded. It was again dismissed on 26-2-1997 and again it was remanded by the court of first appeal. It was ultimately dismissed by the learned trial court on 28-9-2000. I may note here that the learned trial court found issue No.4 against the respondent while issues No.6 & 7 were found in favour of the petitioner. Notwithstanding the said findings, learned trial court proceeded to dismiss the suit by holding under issue No.1 that he had no locus standi to file a suit and under issue No.5 that he was not entitled to the possession. First appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by learned ADJ., Faisalabad on 17-4-2002. I will be referring to this judgment in some detail in later part of-this judgment.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned trial court had decided all the material issues in favour of the petitioner. Learned ADJ has written a judgment which is neither here nor there and ultimately has ended up with the observation that he is not prepared to decide the material proposition involved in the case. The respondents have since been proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 5-3-2007. Even today no one has turned up for them despite the fact that the name of their counsel is duly reflected in the cause list.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. I have already reproduced above the material contents of the pleadings of the parties. There is no denial by, the respondent that he is co-owner in Property No.P-172 while the petitioner is co-owner in Property No.P-173. He has admitted that he is in possession of the suit property as depicted in the plan annexed with the plaint and has also admitted that he has constructed a room thereon. Under issue No.6, it has been held as a fact by the learned trial court that the property in question forms a part of joint courtyard on Property No.P-
173. Under issue No.4, it has been held that the respondent does not own the suit property. Issue No.7 has also been ;answered by the learned trial court in affirmative. However, while answering issue No.1, learned trial court held that since the petitioner is in possession of the property purchased by him as a part of Property No.P-173, he is not entitled to A possession of the suit property. I have noted above that it has been held as a fact and with reference to the cases earlier decided by the Settlement Department as also by the civil courts that the suit property in fact forms a part of a common courtyard which is appended to Property No.P-173 for the joint use of the owners of the said property. The respondent being admittedly in illegal occupation of the suit property was liable to be ejected at the behest of the petitioner, particularly, when no plea was taken that he is there under the licence of some other co-owner. It was only the petitioner who had stated that he gave him permission to occupy the said part of the common courtyard of his property and this is the finding of the learned trial court. Coming to the judgment of learned ADJ, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent never. Claimed that he is in occupation with permission of any of the co-sharers and even denied that he is there with the permission of 'the petitioner, admitted co-owner of the Property No.P-173, learned ADJ had held that he finds it difficult to believe that the respondent was allowed to occupy the said property by the petitioner without consent of the other co-owners. Finding it difficult to get rid of other findings, recorded by the learned trial Court in favour of the petitioner which are fully supported by evidence on record, including the judgments Exh.P.4 and P.5, learned ADJ has adopted a strange logic which prima facie smacks of dishonesty. I deem it appropriate to reproduce here para.12 of the judgment:--- " While cross-examining the D.W.1, the picture which emerges is that the property in dispute is situated adjacent to' property No.P-173 in which the property of the plaintiff is situated, it need not to be discussed in detail that whether this portion is part of property No.P-172 or No.P-173, because while going to decide this suit, I am not going to touch this point. But the claim of the defendant is that the property No.P-173 is situated on both the sides of the street and is situated at the end of the street. So this point cannot be decided in this case whether portion is part of Property No.P-173 or P-172."
' The impugned judgment of the learned ADJ' bounds on perverse.
4. C.R. Accordingly is allowed. Both the judgments and decrees of lower courts, dismissing the suit of the petitioner, are set aside and the suit filed by the petitioner is decreed as prayed for. As the respondents have opted not to appear and contest, the parties are left to bear their own cost.