ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J. --- Through this writ petition, the petitioner challenges two orders dated 01.12.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge and order dated 20.10.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, whereby application filed by the petitioner for cancellation of auction order and objection on the report of Commission was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that respondents No. 1 & 2 filed a suit for possession through partition of the suit property which was decreed and after receipt of report of Local Commission the suit property was put to auction. The petitioner filed an application under Section 151, CPC for cancellation of auction proceedings stating therein that the petitioner purchased land measuring 4 Marlas from Nazir Ahmad on 28.04.2007 vide registered sale-deed No. 7573, whereas the land measuring 3 Macias and 2 Sarsahis was purchased from defendant Nos. 1 &. 5 on 08.05.2007 vide registered sale-deed No. 8131. He is bona fide purchaser for value of land measuring seven marlas 2 sarsahis out of the land measuring 15 marlas, The petitioner has occupied the portion of suit property comprising of 7 Marlas and `2 sarsahis and his share has also been excluded in the judgment dated 6.3.2012. He also filed objections on the report of the Commission dated 19.04.2012 stating therein that the suit property comprising of two portions and is partitionable.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Civil Judge has failed to consider the objections on Commission report raised by the petitioner; therefore, dismissal of petitioner's application is illegal;,that both the Courts below did not consider the legal aspect of the case and decided the matter on wrong assumption and without framing of issues and calling evidence of the parties; that the impugned orders have caused miscarriage of justice and prejudiced the case of the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below reveals that the preliminary decree was passed vide judgment dated 06.03.2012 in which the petitioner was made party but no application for exclusion of share of the petitioner was moved rather it was exclusion of share of vendor who sold the property in favour of the petitioner. It further shows that the local Commission after visiting the spot, recording evidence of the parties as well as the witnesses prepared the report. It is further evident from the record that the plaintiffs/respondents have not sold their share from the joint property; therefore, they are equally entitled to get their share from both the properties/portions.
6. Concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by both the Courts below which cannot be upset in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below warranting interference. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed. .