JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.---At the very outlet the learned counsel for the private respondents has pointed out that facts have deliberately been concealed from the Court by the petitioner. To substantiate his assertion, he has referred to the fact that a learned Bench of the High Court had earlier remanded the matter to the learned District Court. After remand, the learned District Court had appointed a Local Commission for site inspection. The impugned order passed by the learned Appellate Court is based on a consideration of the second part of the Local Commission. This second report has not been filed with the present petition. On the contrary, the admitting order, dated 5-4-2006 will show that one of the reasons which prevailed with me for admitting the petitioner to regular hearing was the earlier report of the Local Commission which alone was mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioner and facts mentioned therein.
2. Another reason for admitting the petition to regular hearing was that the F.I.R. No. 63 of 2004, which was registered against the respondents/ plaintiffs for demolishing the water channel, which is subject-matter of the present dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not inform the Court that the said F.I.R. Stood cancelled through an order, dated 10-8-2004 passed by the DPO.
3. There is no explanation forthcoming from learned counsel for the petitioner as to why such material facts had not been brought to the attention of the Court at the stage of admission hearing. This conduct on the part of the petitioner is by itself sufficient to decline discretionary revisional jurisdiction in this case. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.