' MAULVI ANWARUL, HAQ, J.--On 7-11-1990 respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No,8. In the plaint it was stated that plaintiffs are owners of land measuring 2 Kanals and 12 Marlas comprising Khasra Nos.18/3 and 18/1 described in detail in para-1 of the plaint.
The only passage to approach the road is towards South. The area is located within municipal limits. The petitioners have started digging the land to construct shops toward South. In case they raised the construction the plaintiffs will have no passage to and from road to their plot. It was stated that the passage is being used as such for more than 20 years. They accordingly sought a decree for permanent injunction retraining the petitioners from raising any construction and also mandatory injunction for removing structure raised. The petitioners filed a written statement. Which is rather brief. They simply stated that there is no provision for passage and that they are raising new contruction in the place of old construction. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit on 23-12-1997 as against the petitioners, however, since it was found that the construction has been raised in violation of municipal law, the suit was decreed as against respondent No,8. A first appeal filed by the plaintiffs has been allowed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, on 18-7-2002 inasmuch as he has directed the petitioners to provide 12 feet wide passage to the plot of the plaintiffs.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that admittedly the plaintiffs/ respondents had no title or interest in the land of Chappar in possession of the petitioners and as such they cannot claim a passage through the same. He also presses C.M.No,1808/06 for permission to lead additional evidence with contention that through these documents he wants to demonstrate that the plaintiffs/ respondents had sold away the land qua which the relief was claimed and further that his client have valid title in the land in their possession. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends with reference to the case of Pakistan National Oils Ltd. And another v.
Sattar Muhammad (1980 SCM R 686) and Municipal Committee Toba Tek Singh v. Mirza Ghulam Sarwar and others (2003 SCM R 1341) that it stands established on record that the petitioners had blocked the right of frontage of the property of the plaintiffs and further no passage is left to approach the main road because of the illegal construction raised by the petitioners.
3. I have gone through the copies of the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I have already reproduced the material contents of the plaint above and further noted that the written statement is rather brief and vague wherein material contents of the plaint have not at all been answered. Be that as it may, in the plaint the suit land has been described to be comprising Khasra Nos.18/1 and 18/3 in village Rangpura Sialkot city with the following boundaries North house of Malik Shukar Elahi, South Road, East Chapper, West Ahata of Bashir. P . W . 1 Saleem Khan Chaichi, Advocate, Local Commissioner proved his report Exh.P1. He prepared a site plan reproduced in his repot Exh.P1 which corresponds with the said boundaries. Ehsan Elahi one of the petitioner appeared as P.W.5 and he produced site plan Exh.P4, which is at page 142 of this paper book. According to this plan towards North of the plot in question is house of Malik Shukar Elahai, towards East is Chapper and Ahata of Malik Shukar Din towards West the Ahata and residential house of Muhammad Bashir towards South is the road and in between road and front of the plot of the plaintiffs is construction raised by the petitioners shown as ABCD. Mukhtaran Begum the deceased petitioner No,5 appeared as DW-4 and in her examination-in-chief she stated that towards North plot of the plaintiffs is the house of Shukar Elahi, towards South are shops constructed by the petitioners and then is the road towards East is the house of Iqbal while towards West is the property of Bashir. Thus, the plan Exh.P4 stands fully corroborated by the said petitioner in the witness-box. Apart from this the petitioners themselves produced Malik Shukar Elahi as DW.2 and Muhammad Younas DW-3 and both the said witnesses have stated the same boundaries. I, therefore, do agree with the learned District Judge that the plan Exh.P4 reflects the correct position at the spot. This being so, the plaintiffs' case that their passage has been completely blocked and they have been left with no passage to the main road stands established on record. In the said established position on record, apart from the said fact that it stands proved that the approach or passage to the plot stands completely blocked because of the said construction raised by the petitioners, the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the said case of Municipal Committee of Toba Tek Singh and Pakistan National Oils Ltd., also becomes fully attracted. The right of frontage of the plaintiff has been interfered with and blocked by the petitioners.
4. So far as the said documents being sought to be produced are concerned, the same have no relevance. I may mention here that these documents are a sale-deed dated 24-3-1994 executed by or on behalf of the plaintiffs for sale of 6 Marlas of land out of Khasra No,18/1 measuring 11 Marlas.
The second document is sale dated 27-3-1994 regarding 14 Marlas 7 sarsai of land in Khasra No,18/1 and 19. Even it be assumed that this land has been sold from the suit land, the plaintiffs are still left with 1 Kanals 12 Marlas of land' even if it be ignored that the same sale-deed also pertains to Khasra No,
19. So far as the 3rd document is concerned, this is dated 15-10-1974 executed by Muhammad Naseer and others in favour of Mukhtaran Begum transferring 1 Kanal 14 Marlas of land out of several Khewats measuring 16 Kanals 12 Marlas in village Rangpura. This sale-deed obviously has no connection with the land in the said Chapper because the said lady herself as DW-4 stated that the land was purchased by her father and she specifically stated that they had not purchased land under the shops in question from anyone. I, therefore, do not find the said documents to be relevant for decision of this case. Even otherwise no reason is forthcoming as to why these documents were not produced during the course of trial or first appeal. C.M. 1808/06 is accordingly dismissed.
5. For all that has been discussed above, civil revision is found to be without any force and is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.