' SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASLAM, J.---This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision Nos-1869 and 1870 of 1997, as common question of law and. Facts are involved in both this petition's.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of 1/2 share of the suit Ihata No-156 comprising of 1 Kanal, 110 Marlas of Khewat No-144 min Khatooni No-170 situated in village A 251/GB Tehsil & District T.T. Singh. Mutations No-787 dated 21-4-1984 and subsequent Mutation No, 919, dated 15-2-1990 were sanctioned illegally in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 9 in collusion with Revenue officials. The plaintiffs averred that the plaintiffs and ancestor of defendants Nos. 2 to 9 were in possession of the suit Ihata in equal share A and they made their separate construction upon their equal shares. The defendants Nos.2 to 9 had also filed separate suit for declaration to the effect that they are owners in possession of the suit Ihata. Both the parties filed their written statements. Issues were framed and suits were consolidated. The parties led their respective evidence oral as well as documentary in support of their pleas.
3. The learned trial Judge after appreciation of evidence dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit of defendants vide judgment dated 24-10-1995. The plaintiffs preferred two B appeals challenging the dismissal of their suit and decreeing the suit of the defendants. The learned Addl. District Judge vide his judgment dated 14-10-1997 dismissed both the appeals. Hence these civil revisions.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the courts below have failed to consider Exh.P2, a document of vital importance to the case of the petitioners, hence the judgments being in violatiOn of Order XLI Rule 31, C.P.C. Are liable to be set at naught.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the learned courts below, rightly, . Did not consider the document Ex.P2 as it did not find mention in the plaint filed by the petitioners.
6. Heard. Record perused.
7. Both the suits were consolidated. Evidence was recorded in one suit after framing of consolidated issues. In the suit filed by the respondents, the petitioner raised a specific plea in his written statement that he is owner in possession of the land in dispute by way of an agreement in his favour. This agreement was produced as Exh.P2. It was not object to by the respondents. Plea specifically raised in the written statement of a consolidated suit was sufficient notice to respondents, who were not taken by surprise. Both the Courts below have committed illegality in discarding the document Ex.P2, or erroneous consideration. Non-consideration and discussion of remaining documentary evidence Ex.Pl and Ex.P3 to Ex.P5 and Mark-AB & C rendered their judgments a nullity in law. Reference can be had to the case of Me.Ssrs Saqib Brothers, Jhang and another v. Messrs CIBA GIEGY (Pakistan) Ltd. (1991 CLC 710).
9. For what has been discussed above, these civil revisions are allowed, impugned judgments and decrees are set aside. The suits shall be deemed to be pending before the trial Court which shall decide the same afresh by recording its findings on issues Nos.l, 2, 3, 7, 8 & 9 only. Findings of Courts below on issues Nos.4,5,6,10 to 15 are affirmed. The parties to bear their own costs.