MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---This civil revision has been directed against the order dated 26-10-2013 passed by the learned District Judge Gilgit in CFA No,44/2012, whereby, the learned first appellate court has passed the following order:- In view of above and subject to aforesaid the claim of the plaintiff beyond 2 kanals of land originally allotted to him was unfounded and not proved therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment being valid is liable to be maintained.
Consequent upon the above this appeal is hereby dismissed as meritless. Impugned judgment passed in the suit by the learned trial court is hereby maintained. Record of trial court be returned to them and this file after due completion be consigned to record."
2. Through suit (Civil Suit No,38/93), petitioner/plaintiff prayed for declaration with perpetual injunction to the effect that suit land is ownership of the petitioner/plaintiff and he is in possession of the same. Petitioner/plaintiff has further prayed for cancellation of order dated 10-04-1993 of respondent No, 1/defendant No,
1. Learned trial court completed all trial proceedings and passed the following judgment/order : -- Issue No,14/Relief.
20. The upshot of the above issue-wise findings is that the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed holding not proved. The defendant No,2 is declared owner of the disputed land comprising one kanal and 8 marlas. Plaintiff shall also bear all costs of the parties".
On appeal (CFA No,44/2012), the learned first appellate court passed above referred order.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the material available on file.
From minute perusal of judgments of the two courts below, it is evident that both the courts below have passed judgments/orders partly in favour of petitioner/plaintiff and partly against him. I have taken up said aspects of the two courts below for discussion and have based my findings on the said aspects of the orders of the two courts below. In the case in hand, it is not disputed that respondents did not file any appeal etc. against judgment/order dated 08-11-2012 of the learned trial court nor have filed any appeal or revision etc. against impugned order. For example, if we go through the judgment dated 08-11-2012 of the learned Civil Judge, it is evident that the said court has given findings against the respondents on issues Nos,8, 10 and 11 and respondents did not file any appeal or revision etc. Likewise, learned first appellate court has also given its findings, through impugned order against the respondents on many aspects of the case, but respondents did not file any appeal or revision etc. So, both the orders of the two courts below are operative against the respondents as many parts of the findings of the learned two courts below are against the respondents. Learned first appellate court has held that claim of petitioner/plaintiff beyond 2 kanals of suit land is unfounded and not proved. These remarks of the first appellate court very clearly show that claim of the petitioner/plaintiff is correct to the extent of 2 kanals land out of the suit land, but as to remaining part of the suit land, the same is unfounded. Suit land is 3 kanals and 5 marlas. Learned trial court has declared respondent/defendant No,2 as owner of the suit land comprising 1 kanal and 8 marlas. In my opinion, the judgment/order of learned trial court merged in the judgment/order of first appellate court and, since the date of impugned order, the same is in field with its full force. So now suit land is only 1 kanal and 5 marlas and the same is in possession of respondent/defendant No,2.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff failed to point out any evidence showing title of petitioner/plaintiff to the suit land measuring 1 kanal and 5 marlas. I have gone through the file and found no evidence in proof of title of plaintiff to the said part of suit land. Impugned order is fit to be upheld and I do so accordingly. Petition dismissed. This file be consigned to record.