SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---Shop bearing property No,B.IV.2.S-1 measuring 1 marla and 3 sarsai falling in Akbar Bazar Sheikhupura admittedly was jointly owned by the parties according to their shares, which are not disputed by them. Respondent filed suit for partition of this shop. During the proceedings, with mutual consent of the parties, as per their statements recorded by the learned trial Court, that they had no objection to the partition of this shop Mr. Riaz Hussain Opal, Advocate, was appointed as Local Commission who submitted his report proposing three modes of partition as given in three figures separately drawn, A which is annexed with this petition at page 17. Learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura vide his judgment, dated 16-9-2002 decreed the suit according to figure No,3 which was challenged by the respondent through appeal which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura who while setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit according to figure No,2. This judgment and decree of the learned Additional Sessions Judge has been challenged through this revision.
2. With the consent of parties this petition is treated as a Pacca Case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned Additional District Judge could not appreciate the report of Local Commissioner properly. If the shop in dispute was partitioned according to figure No,2, face of the portion falling to the share of petitioners shall be reduced to an extent where no shop could be established and this property cannot be used for any other purpose as well. This figure proposing the said mode renders the suit property as indivisiable hence, either the judgment of the learned trial Court be restored or the property in dispute be directed to be sold through auction.
4. The petition was opposed by the respondent.
5. There is no dispute between the parties that four shares are owned by the respondent whereas the petitioners are owners of two shares. According to figure No,2 from the front four feet have been given to the petitioners, whereas remaining eight feet have been fallen to the share of respondent.
This was the only equitable distribution. The parties are real brothers, Had they shown soft corner for each other, any other settlement could be arrived at between them. For this purpose effort was made which turned futile.
6. No illegality is found in the impugned judgment hence, this revision is held to be without any force and is dismissed.