' MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- This is an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment, dated 28-5-2008 whereby Writ A Petition No,8203 of 2006 was allowed and order, dated 27-6-2005 of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, was set aside and order passed by the learned Rent Controller on 25-3-2006 was restored.
2. In this application explanation has been sought to be given for absence of the applicant or her learned counsel. After examining the application both the parties were put on notice on 17-7-2008 to argue the main case. I have accordingly reheard the case.
3. Learned counsel has reiterated the arguments noted in the judgment. Mr. Muhammad Riaz Lone, Advocate, has argued that sufficient evidence is not available on record to establish relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. According to him Gulzar Hussain receiver ought to have been produced. He then argued that the writ petition was not competent against the finding of facts recorded by the learned First Appellate Court. States with reference to the judgment in the case of Maqbool Ahmed v. Government of Pakistan 1991 SCM R 2063 that notwithstanding the fact that his client failed to establish the title claimed by her, she acquired the same by the adverse possession.
4. I have gone through the record of the writ petition with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. To my mind, this being a case of misreading of evidence rather non-reading thereof by the Court of first appeal writ petition was competent. The applicant never pleaded adverse possession. Her case was that she is owner of the property which plea she failed to prove, as would be evident from the discussion of the evidence in the judgment, dated 28-5-2008. The case of the writ petitioner was that there had been long drawn litigation about the suit property amongst the co-owners/co-heirs which started somewhere in the year 1956/57. It was not suggested to the writ petitioner in the witness-box that Gulzar Hussain receiver is still alive and available. Be that as it may, other evidence on record is sufficient to prove the relationship between the parties in the absence of evidence of any title possessory or otherwise in the respondent. Having, thus, heard and re-examined the record, I am not inclined to recall my judgment, dated 28-5-2008. C.M. Is accordingly dismissed.