CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. --- Brief facts of the case are that Hayat alias Hata petitioner on 10.09.1989 filed a suit for possession and consequential relief regarding land measuring 2% kanals bearing Khasra No. 12111 of square No. 121 of Mouza Man, District Sargodha claiming himself to be the owner of the same. According to him, Mutation No. 141 regarding the suit land was wrongly got sanctioned by the respondent in his favour, he challenged the same by filing a civil suit against Gulzar Ahmad respondent and one Allah Bakhsh, which was decreed on 28.09.1983 and Mutation No. 990 was also sanctioned in his favour on 16.03.1989 but the respondent illegally dispossessed him from the suit land when he had gone to District Muiaffargarh. The respondent in his written statement denied the allegations, claiming that the petitioner had already disposed of the land to the extent of his share; that he having purchased the property has raised constructions over it; that he is enjoying its possession for more than 12 years and that a suit for declaration regarding the same land filed by him was also pending. The learned Trial Court consolidated both the suits, framed issues, recorded evidence and after going through the record, decreed the suit filed by the petitioner while dismissing that of the respondent, vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.1997. The respondent feeling aggrieved of the said judgment and decree filed two appeals and the learned lower Appellate Court, after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal filed against the dismissal of suit for declaration, but allowed the appeal filed against the decree for possession passed in favour of the petitioner holding the said suit as time-barred, vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2001, hence this civil revision.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that description of the suit property was clearly mentioned in the plaint with specific Khasra and square number etc. But the learned Appellate Court has wrongly decided that demarcation was required before filing the suit for possession.
Further submits that after admitting the suit to have been filed within a period of five years, the learned Appellate Court has illegally arrived at the conclusion that the suit of the petitioner was time-barred. According to the learned counsel the impugned judgment and decree is the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence on record.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that the petitioner in his earlier suit for declaration challenged mutation No. 141, dated 21.07.1970, which was decreed ex parte in his favour on 28.09.1983 and Mutation No. 990, dated 16.03.1989 in his name, but he never claimed possession in the said suit, but he subsequently filed the suit out of which this civil revision has arisen claiming that the respondent took over possession forcibly in his absence, but the documentary evidence including electricity bills produced by the respondent fully proved that the respondent was in possession of the land in dispute under Mutation No. 141, as such the learned Appellate Court rightly hold the suit of the petitioner as barred by time. Further contends that in view of the objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Appellate Court that saw machine and other instalments, for which electricity bills were relied upon, were not in the disputed property, the learned Appellate Court rightly held that demarcation should have been ascertained to find out as to which portion was in possession of the respondent.
4. Heard. Record perused.
5. The petitioner in his earlier suit for declaration did not pray for possession of the land, allegedly got transferred by the respondent through Mutation No. 141, dated 21.07.1970, which was decreed ex parte in his;favour on 28.09.1983 and Mutation No. 990, dated 16.03.1989 in his name. Thereafter he filed the suit out of which this civil revision has arisen on 10.09.1989, claiming that the respondent took over possession forcibly in his absence, but Exh.D.2 to Exh.D.9 (electricity bills for the year 1982) produced by the respondent fully supported the plea of the respondent that he was in possession of the land in dispute since before the decree for possession passed in favour of the petitioner, as such the learned Appellate Court rightly hold the suit of the petitioner as barred by time. Since it was claimed by the petitioner that saw machine and other instalments, for which electricity bills were relied upon, were not in the disputed property, the learned Appellate Court rightly declared that demarcation should have been ascertained to find out as to which portion was in possession of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this civil revision is dismissed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Revision .