' SYED AKHLAQ AHMAD, J.---This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment dated 1-10-2010 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Nankana Sahib whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the order dated 19-6-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge Nankana Sahib by virtue of which he not only dismissed the application for temporary injunction of the petitioners/plaintiffs but also rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 1'1, C . P . C .
2. Brief facts of the case are that Muhammad Younas, the predecessor in interest of the petitioners purchased a plot measuring 1 marla, 3 sarsai in Khasra No, 352, Khewat No, 11, Khatooni No, 319 situated within the area of Mustafa Abad Warbarton Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib from Ghulam Hussain son of Ghulam Muhammad caste Sheikh resident of Mandi Warbarton Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib in consideration of Rs,7,000 vide sale-deed No, 1236 Bahi No, 1, Jild No, 91 dated 10-11-1991 registered at Sub-Registrar Nankana Sahib. The aforesaid plot is adjacent to the plot of the petitioner towards its North. The predecessor in interest of the petitioners already owned a plot in Khasra No, 350 over which he has constructed a house. After purchase of the aforesaid land from Ghulam Hussain, he included it in his property which was already in his possession. In the year 2008, the respondent/Town Committee Warbarton illegally and forcibly tried to take possession of the aforesaid land measuring 1 marla, 3 sarsai from the predecessor in interest of the petitioneRs, On coming to know about it, he immediately approached the respondent with original documents explaining that he has not encroached upon any land of the Town Committee and according to the record, no gali existed at the spot. Even otherwise, neighbourers/inhabitants of the locality have no right or authority to complain the matter before the respondent. He also approached the Civil Court Nankana Sahib by filing a suit for permanent injunction in which interim relief was granted and notice was issued to the respondent who appeared and filed his written statement and reply stating that the predecessor in interest of the petitioners/plaintiffs have no concern whatsoever with the said property wherein a street was in the use of the public at large.
Respondent had not taken any objection in his written statement regarding rejection of plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Nor he moved any application for rejection of plaint. The suit was pending for the arguments on the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. Learned Civil Judge not only illegally dismissed this application but also rejected the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Vide order dated 19-6-2009. Aggrieved with the said order, 'the petitioners/plaintiffs filed appeal which was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge Nankana Sahib vide judgment dated 1-10-2010. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid decisions of the courts below the petitioners/plaintiffs have challenged the same before this court through present revision.
3. Town Committee Warbarton/respondent/defendant contested the suit as well as stay application of the petitioners/plaintiffs vide its written statement and reply contending that the form of the suit is wrong. The petitioners/plaintiffs are not competent to file the suit. Details of the suit property is neither complete nor correct. The suit property is "r6t,A,,..1",{{URDU TEXT}} and the petitioners/plaintiffs have no concern with it. In fact they have made encroachment over the same.
The action taken by the answering respondent is correct and strictly in accordance with law. It is therefore, prayed that the suit as well as stay application of the petitioner/plaintiffs may be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that both the learned courts below have taken wrong impression that the petitioners have encroached upon the gali/land of the respondent/ Town Committee whe'reas it is proved on the record that the petitioners/plaintiffs are lawful owners of the suit land through registered sale-deed. It is also proved from the revenue record as well as the record of the Town Committee that there existed no gali at the spot. While deciding the application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C., learned Civil Judge was not competent to reject the plaint under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. While passing the impugned order and judgment both the courts below have badly failed to appreciate all these material aspects of the case which has resulted in great miscarriage of justice. Hence, this civil revision.
5. Haji Rehmat Ali, Muhammad Shoaib Sheikh, Lal Masih/exCouncillor Minority, Abdul Sattar E.S.T (E), Muhammad Khalid Sheikh and Rai Shahid Ashraf/General Councillor and other residents of the Mohallah moved an application in the open Kachehry dated 2-11-2008 of D.C.O. Nankana Sahib for restoration of the encroached gali upon which T.O. (R) was directed to take necessary action. In compliance of the order, Inspector Encroachment N.H.Q Warbarton submitted his report which was supplemented by the Chief Officer, N.H.Q. Warbarton Nankana Sahib. These reports read as under:- {{URDU TEXT}}
7. The above reports have been prepared and submitted by the concerned officials/officers in discharge of their official duty. Presumption of regularity and correctness is attached to these reports. The petitioners/plaintiffs have also alleged no mala fide or ulterior motive against the said officials/officeRs, This being so, these reports can be safely and legally relied upon for the decision of controversy between the parties.
It is therefore, fully established and moved that the petitioners plaintiffs have encroached upon {{URDU TEXT}} of the respondent/Town Committee Warbarton by including the same into their own property. The respondent is not concerned with the ownership of the petitioners regarding 1 marla, 3 sarsai of land if he has legally and validly purchased it from any actual owner. However in the cover of the said land, they cannot include the {{URDU TEXT}} the respondent/Committee into their property. The petitioners/plaintiffs being encroacher of the public street are not entitled to get any legal shelter from the courts of law to perpetuate their encroachment. There appears no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned concurrent findings of both the courts below calling for interference by this court in its revisional jurisdiction.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the civil revision has no merits which is dismissed in limine.
9. Administrator Town Committee Warbarton is directed to initiate necessary action for the removal of encroachment and restoration of at the spot for the public at large without any delay.