ALI BAIG, J.---Through the instant writ petition, filed under Article 86(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan Order , 2018 read with enabling Articles of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has called in question the validity and the propriety of the impugned judgment/order dated 10-12-2018 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge Astore and judgment/order dated 27-04-2019 passed by the learned District Judge Astore, whereby , both the courts below have dismissed objection petition of the petitioner/defendant filed against commission report submitted by local commission on 23-05-2016.
2. Succinctly , facts forming background of the instant writ petition are that present respondents/plaintif fs instituted a suit for declaration, perpetual injunction and possession of suit land measuring 1 (one) kanal 10 (ten) marlas fully described in the heading of the plaint against the present petitioner/defendant in the trial court.
3. The present petitioner being defendant in the suit contested the suit by way of filing his written statement in the learned trial court raising certain legal objections and repudiating averments of plaint.
4. During pendency , of suit, the learned trial court, vide order dated 27-04-2016, directed the Assistant Commissioner Astore for demarcation of suit land to the extent that whether the defendant or any other person has encroached upon suit land or not.
5. The Assistant Commissioner Astore in compliance with the order of the trial court had nominated Tehsildar Astore for aforesaid purpose. Accordingly , the Tehsildar Astore has submitted report in this regard to the Assistant Commissioner Astore who forwarded the said report to the learned trial court on 24-05-2016. The present petitioner filed objection petition against the report of Tehsildar Astore/local commission on 13-12-2016. The learned trial court, after hearing arguments on the aforesaid objection petition, has dismissed the objection petition of the present petitioner vide order . dated 10-12 -2018. The present petitioner had filed civil revision petition in the court of the learned District Judge Astore against the order of the learned trial court dated 10-12-2018. The learned District Judge vide the impugned order dated 27-04-2019 has also dismissed the civil revision petition of the present petitioner .
6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned revisional court/District Court Astore, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the impugned judgment/ order passed by the learned District Judge Astore is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case as such the impugned order is not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned coun sel for the petitioner has further argued that the report of local commission is against the facts and record of the case and the learned judges of the courts below have failed to apply their judicious thoughts while passing the impugned judgments/orders and have wrongly dismissed the objections of the petitioner filed against commission report.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed this writ petition by contending that the petitioner has not appended the complete documents/pleadings with the instant writ petition, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the commission report is a piece of evidence and it can be considered at time of disposal of suit by the learned trial court. The learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that no any adverse order has been passed by the learned trial court against the petitioner on the basis of commission report; hence, this writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
10. From perusal of record, it transpires that the commission was appointed on the joint request and consent of both the parties as evident from the impugned order dated 10-12-2018 passed by the learned trial court.
Accordingly , commission has visited the site in question and has demarcated the suit land in presence of the partied and has submitted his report to the learned trial court.
11. It may be noted that the local commissioner was appointed with the consent of parties, who have agreed to be bound by his report, therefore, no objections could be entertained. Thus, both the courts below have rightly dismissed the objections of the present petitioner filed against the commission report. However , commission report is a piece of evidence and evidentiary value of said report may be considered by the learned trial court at the time of final disposal of the case along with other oral and documentary evidence of the parties.
12. Moreover , we have noticed that the petitioner/ defendant has not annexed complete documents/copies of entire pleadings with this writ petition while invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 86(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan Order , 2018 and filing of revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. before the District Court Astore. The petitioner was bound under law to produce complete certified copies of documents of the case with this writ petition as well as with the revision petition which was filed before the learned District Judge Astore, but some of the important documents, i.e., statements of parties regarding appointment of commission and order of trial court regarding appointment of commission etc. have not been appended herewith which can easily be presumed that the same are against the petitioner/defendant. Therefore, this fact is suf ficient to dismiss this writ petition.
13. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition having no substance and merits stands dismissed.
However , the parties are left to bear their own costs. File.