1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been ----" from a judgment of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Civil Revision arising out of a suit for permanent injunction which related to the construction of a wall and placing a door therein by the respondent, was dismissed.
2. All the necessary copies including those of the pleadings have not been made a part of this petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that both the parties are transferees of two houses which are adjacent to each other, under the laws relating to the Settlement of Displaced Persons. There is a space between the two houses and the respondent wanted to build a wall within the area of that space, and he wanted to place door therein. The petitioner apprehending that the respondent when using the door would step over the part of the open land which is a part of the house transferred to the petitioner and it would also effect his privacy, sought permanent injunction against the action of the respondent. Respondent's plea was that there is a pathway/lane/Gali between the houses and that the wall was not being built upon either on the property belonging to the petitioner or in the lane but within the limits of the area of the house transferred to the respondent. A Local Commissioner was appointed who gave a report favourable to the petitioner/ plaintiff even in excess of what had been claimed in the plaint.
3. Resultantly the suit was decreed but the learned Appellate Court observed that the wall had been built within the boundaries of the area of the house belonging to the respondent which did not effect the rights of the petitioner and the opening of the door even if it was in the pathway would not give rise to a grievance regarding the petitioner's privacy. Accordingly relying on Ashiq Hussain Shah v. Ghulam Shabbir Shah PLD 1968 Lah. 911, the respondent's appeal was allowed and the petitioner's suit was dismissed. A learned Single Judge in the High Court noticed that the wall in question in fact is an extension of an already existing wall and declined interference.
4. We have also noticed from the site-plan prepared by the Local Commissioner that an existing door of the Baithak of the respondent already opens towards the same side and place regarding which the petitioner made grievance in the suit. In this view of the matter it appears that the opening of another door in the newly-constructed wall would not make any difference unless the wall itself was being built upon the land belonging to the petitioner. In this behalf a point way urged before the High Court namely, that the respondent had constructed the wall on the petitioner's land, but it was observed that the said plea was neither raised in the plaint nor in the Revision Petition filed in the High Court. That improvement not having been permitted by the High Court and the plea accordingly was rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner when making his submissions in support of the petition has not been able to satisfy us that the petitioner has in reality suffered any real grievance on account of the conduct of the respondent in either building the wall or leaving an opening in the form of a door, in it. There is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.