MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.---On 9-5-1994 the respondents Nos.1 to 7 filed a suit against the petitioner and respondents Nos.8 and 9. In the .Plaint it was stated that the said defendants have illegally occupied his land measuring 2 Marlas as described in para-1 of the plaint. He sought the possession as also compensation at the rate of Rs.300 per month. The suit was contested by the said defendants who denied the factum of encroachment. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court partly decreed the suit on 4-4-1998 to the extent of an area measuring 44' x 9' against the petitioner only. A first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by a learned ADJ, Faisalabad, on 11-12-1999.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding the said admission of his client in the witness box, since the encroached area formed a part of a passage, the suit could not have been decreed. He also presses C.M.No.347- C/05, which is an application to lead additional evidence. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents supports the impugned judgments and decrees with reference to the evidence on record.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. The suit-land according to the plaint is located in Khasra No.5/14 Killa No.5 Square No.59. In Chak No.224-RB, Tehsil Faisalabad. The petitioner and his co-defendants pleaded and they had purchased 6 Marlas of land in Khasra No.5/11 and 5/12 of Square No.59. The learned trial Court appointed the Tehsildar as a Local Commissioner. He filed his report as Exh.P.1 and proved the same by appearing as P.W.1. According to the encroachment plan Exh.P.2 appended with the report Latif petitioner had encroached upon an area of 9' x 44-1/2'. He had been cross-examined at length but nothing derogatory could be brought out. Apart from this, the petitioner himself admitted with reference to the said plan that he is in excess possession of 1-1/2 Marla which almost is equal to the said area. The encroachment, of course, has been reported in the Khasa number admittedly owned by the plaintiffs/respondents.
4. I, therefore, do not find any factual or legal much-less jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees.
5. So far as the said application for leading additional evidence is concerned, I find that these are copies of applications filed by the respondents No.1 to 7 before the Collector, Faisalabad City that the mention of "Ghair Mumkan Gali" be corrected. Even if I considered the said applications, nothing turns in favour of the petitioner, the reason being that notwithstanding the said description, admittedly, the land is owned by the plaintiff/respondents. Apart from this, it is not his case that he is using the said area as a passage. On the other hand, he has encroached upon the same by raising a boundary wall as stated by him as D.W.2. C.M. No. 347-C/05 is accordingly rejected.
6. I may note here that this case was taken up on 12-12-2006 when some submissions were made and the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the offer made by his client in the witness box that he is prepared to pay the market value to the plaintiffs/respondents. The case was adjourned from time to time for appearance of the said respondents but obviously none of the learned counsel could establish contact with them. Be that as it may, for reasons stated above, the civil revision is dismissed without any orders as to costs. However, in case the decree is put to execution, the petitioner/defendant may repeat his said offer and in case he makes offer for the purchase of the land at market value, the Executing Court may put the same to the decree-holders/plaintiffs. F .
B. /M-496/L .