' ABDUL AZIZ KUNDI, J.--- Abdul Majeed and others plaintiffs-petitioners through plaint dated 5-5- 1997 sued Gul Rehman and others defendants-respondents for possession of an area measuring 43 Kanals 13 Marlas comprising of Khasra No.1861/538 Khata No.115/1003,, Mauza Takhat Abad Awal, Tehsil and District Peshawar. As per averments in the plaint, plaintiffs-petitioners claimed themselves to be the owners of the said property and that they were in possession of the same; that the defendants-respondents are neither owners of the said property, nor ever remained in its possession and that it was one year back that they without any entitlement entered into its possession and in spite of repeated demands are not prepared to leave the said land and hand it over to petitioners.
2. Defendants-respondents of appearance contested the suit through their written statement dated 26-9-1997 and amongst others stated that the suit property is not exclusively owned by plaintiffs-petitioners and was in fact "Shamilat-e-Deh" bearing Khasra No.538 measuring 212 Kanals 6 Marlas during the period 1929-1930 to 1951-1952, whereafter vide mutations Nos.285 to 288 this Khasra number was divided into two Khasra Numbers i.e. Khasra No.1861/538 measuring 43 Kanals, 13 Marlas and Khasra No.1862/538 measuring 168 Kanals 3, Marlas; that disputed Khasra No.1861/538 fell into the share of successors of one Ahmad Jee Khan but they never remained in its possession; that plaintiffs earlier instituted a Civil Suit No.134/1 titled Mst. Shah Pari and others v.
Saadat Jan and others and in the light of judgment and decree dated 27-7-1962 in the said suit the earlier partition was cancelled; that on the basis of the said decree mutation No.711 of "Ishtirak-I- Milkiyat" was entered and attested, which resulted into the disputed property again going into common pool. Certain sales and purchases were also detailed in para.2 of the written statement but the same need not to be dilated upon.
3. In their rejoinder dated 13-10-1997 to the written statement, plaintiffs-petitioners took the stand that even if the defendants-respondents are admitted as co-owners in the disputed property, they are still entitled to possession of the same having been recorded in its possession since sufficient long time and that for the last few years defendants-respondents were tilling the said land as their tenants. This was a complete resile from the stand taken in the plaint.
4. Divergent pleadings resulted into framing of nine issues by trial Court on 21-10-1997. Issues Nos.7 and 8 being relevant for the present controversy are reproduced hereunder:--- "Issue No.7. Whether plaintiffs are joint owners of the land in dispute?
' Issue No.8. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession prayed for in the heading of the plaint?
5. On conclusion of the trial, the trial Court jointly took the aforesaid issues for discussion and held that since the property is jointly owned by parties because the earlier partition was cancelled and property again put in common pool; that one co-sharer cannot seek possession of a specific portion in joint land except through regular partition on a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act.
6. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29-6-2005.
7. In appeal, Additional District Judge-VIII, Peshawar concurred with the trial Court and further held that the evidence produced does not conform with the plaint and that it has not been proved that the plaintiffs were dispossessed forcefully or by other means by the defendants-respondents.
Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were maintained.
8. Still aggrieved, plaintiffs-petitioners have filed the present revision petition.
9. I have heard Mr. Abdul Samad Khan Zaida, Advocate, learned counsel for petitioners and Malik Jarar Hussain, Advocate for respondents on pre-admission notice and gone through the record of the case.
10. While claiming exclusive title over the suit-land plaintiffs-petitioners had filed a simple suit for possession, which exclusive title was challenged by defendants-respondents. In spite of their exclusive title having been put to serious challenge in the written statement, plaintiffs-petitioners in their rejoinder to the same did not attend to the issue seriously and instead changed their stand as against the one taken in the plaint and stated that defendants-respondents are their tenants and thus even if they are admitted to be co-sharers, still they are bound to surrender possession to them.
11. I am afraid, the contention of the plaintiffs-petitioners is without any force. In the plaint it had never been their case that respondents are tenants-at-will over the suit-land. The factum of cancellation of earlier mutation of partition and the property having again gone into common pool has been admitted by plaintiffs-petitioners in their evidence.
12. Though after the partition of Khasra No.538, the plaintiffs-petitioners are recorded as owners in possession of Khasra No.1861/538 measuring 43 Kanals, 13 Marlas and this entry continued till attestation of Mutation No.711 dated 26-11-1973 of "Ishtirak-i-Milkiyat" whereafter entries in the record of rights changed and land in dispute again went to common pool. How and when the plaintiffs-petitioners were dispossessed of the same and defendants-respondents entered into its possession is a mystery and alarming as well because it is against all norms of justice to deprive a co-sharer from possession of his lawful share through means other than lawful.
13. It is well settled and as held by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case reported as Samal Gul v. Central Government and others PLD 1986 SC 35 that a Court is empowered to grant such relief as the justice of the case may demand and for purposes of determining the relief asked for, the whole of the plaint must be looked into, so that the substance rather than the form should be examined. But in the instant D case resort to Order VII, rule 7, C.P.C. Cannot be made to help the plaintiffs-petitioners because of the suit being one for possession alone in respect of limited area and entire joint property not a subject matter of the suit, absence of other co-owners besides.
14. In the circumstances, the only remedy available and left for petitioners is to go for partition of the joint holding, as held by Honourable Supreme Court in the judgment titled Mst. Resham Bibi and others v. Lal Din and others 1999 SCM R 2325.
15. Partition suit, if and when filed, the Court, seized should do its best to decide the same in accordance with law on priority basis and within shortest possible time.
' This revision petition, for the afore-stated reasons is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.