JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J. --- The petitioner Sher Muhammad filed a suit seeking permanent injunction. The respondents also filed a suit seeking permanent injunction. Both suits were consolidated The learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents as prayed for while dismissing the suit of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal wherein the learned Appellate Court affirmed the decrees of the learned Trial Court. Hence, this revision petition.
2. The facts of this case are straightforward. It was the case of the respondents that there was a khal and a passage in Khasra No. 60/3/1. They prayed for an injunction to restrain the petitioner from interfering in or demolishing the path and the khal. It is not in dispute that there is a khal as established from the aks shajra (Exh.P-2). To the extent of the said khal, the petitioner has no grievance.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that there is no path in Khasra No. 60/31 as alleged by the respondents/plaintiffs. He further argued that even the aks shajra (Exh.P-2) does not show the existence of any path. Notwithstanding this position, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that although the learned Appellate Court has noted in para 9 of its judgment that the dispute between the parties is confined to the question as to whether there exists any Khal or not, the Court has proceeded to affirm the decree of the learned Trial Court. The Appellate Court has thus granted an injunction to the respondents in respect of a path also although there is no evidence of the existence of any path and the Appellate Court itself, as noted above, had observed That the dispute only related to a khal.
4. The above contentions could not be controverted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. It is clear from the record that the dispute relates to a khal only, and there is no proof of any passage running along the khal. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the learned Courts below have fallen in error by granting the injunction in favour of the respondents to restrain the petitioner from demolishing the path. The impugned decrees, as such, are,liable to be modified to the effect that the same are maintained to the extent of the khal in dispute but are set aside to the extent the same relate to a passage. .