Brief facts of the present revision petition are that the respondent/plaintif f filed a suit for declaration alongwith permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioners/defendants with the averments that he is owner in possession of the suit land and he is residing in the house after raising construction over Shamlat Deh. He is using the street as passage and there is no other way available for the respondent/plaintif f. The petitioners/defendants, who are neighbourers of the respondent/plaintif f forcibly blocked the passage and when the respondent/plaintif f asked the petitioners/defendants not to block the way of respondent/plaintif f they refused to accord with the demand of plaintif f, hence, the suit. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and by raising legal as well as factual objections. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the learned trial Court. The parties produced their respective evidence and after recording the same, learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the respondent/plaintif f vide judgment and decree dated 07.02.2017. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent/ plaintif f filed an appeal and the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 06.06.2017 decreed the suit of the respondent/plaintif f while accepting the appeal. Being dissatisfied, the petitioners/defendants has filed the instant Revision Petition and challenged the validity of the judgment and decree dated 06.06.2017 passed by the learned Appellate Court.
2: I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. There is no denial of the fact that the respondent/plaintif f was claiming his entitlement to use the passage on the land of Shamlat Deh which can legally be used by all the inhabitants of the village under the law. The Tehsildar/local commission appeared before the Court as PW-3 and deposed that the parties are using the passage for the last 30 years and there is no alternate passage for the respondent/plaintif f for going to his own home. The depositions of DW's are against the factual position and the DW's have not supported the version of the petitioners/defendants. The learned appe llate Court has properly perused the pleadings, statements, of the PW's and DW's as well as documentary evidence by 'discussing in detail and thereafter reached at the conclusion regarding the controversy . Hence, the findings of learned appellate Court are maintained upheld.
4. With respect to interference in the findings of appellate Court where there is inconsistency between the trial Court and appellate Court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Amjad Ikram vs. Mst.
Asiya Kausar (2015 SCMR 1 ) held that: "Even otherwise, in case of inconsistency between the learned and the appellate Court, the latter must he given preference in the absence of any cogent reason to the contrary , as has been held by this Court in judgements reported as Madan Gopal and 4 other vs. Madan Bipari and 3 others (PLD 1969 SC 617 and Mohammad Nawaz through LRs vs. Haji Mohammad Baran Khan through LRs and others ( 2013 SCMR 1300 )
5. Learned appellate Court has thoroughly examined the entire evidence of the parties and thereafter reached at the conclusion regarding the controversy . Neither any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record nor any infirmity , legal or factual, has been pointed out in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court. Therefore, this revision petition is dismissed .