MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.--By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 21-5-1985 passed in Civil Revision No. 291/D of 1984.,
2. Facts stated in the petition briefly are as follows:- On the 20th June, 1969 the respondent brought, in the Court of Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, a suit for a permanent injunction against the present petitioner, praying that the latter be restrained from encroaching upon, or making any construction on, the property in dispute, which, according to the plaintiff was a vacant plot of land measuring 3 Marlas and 175 an. Feet bearing Khasra No. 9205/4089, situated in Mitarpura, Chaklala Road, Rawalpindi. It was claimed by the plaintiff /respondent that he was the exclusive owner of the abovementioned plot, which he had purchased from its previous owner, Shaikh Muhammad Sarwar. In the alternative, he prayed for possession of the property in suit alleging that defendant (petitioner herein) who was the owner of adjoining property, was trying to encroach upon the plot. The learned Civil Judge, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiff /respondent, vide his judgment, dated the 23rd July, 1978. The petitioner filed an appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge which was heard by a learned Additional District Judge who dismissed the same per order, dated the 23rd October, 1984. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition in the Lahore High Court which was dismissed in limine, vide the impugned judgment, dated the 21st May, 1985.
3. The learned counsel contended that the Courts below, in recording a finding in favour of the plaintiff, on issue No. 1, have either miss-read or ignored important oral and documentary evidence and reliance had been placed on certain documents produced by the plaintiff /respondent which was not legally admissible in evidence. It was further contended that during the trial of the case the petitioner had made an application for the appointment of a Local Commissioner to make demarcation and identification of the property in the suit and the adjoining properties because the dispute between the parties could not otherwise be resolved in a just manner; that considering all the circumstances of the case, this application of the petitioner should have been granted but the learned trial Court rejected the application and a revision filed by the petitioner, against this order of rejection was dismissed by the learned District Judge.
4. We have gone through the evidence. We have heard the learned counsel at length and would reproduce below the material portion of the impugned judgment of the High Court:- "As to the main issue that whether the respondent was owner in possession of Khasra No. 9205/4089, the learned Civil Judge observed that the mutation Exh D . 4 showed that the above said Khasra number was in fact, owned by one Amreek Singh who, in his turn, alienated that to Sardar Bahadur Lehna Singh. Amreek Singh had purchased the said Khasra number from Gurdat Singh. The Tatimma prepared on that mutation showed that the Khasra number was separated from Khasra No. 9206/4089/2. The mutation Exh. D. 3 and D. 4 also found their support from the Register Haqdaran D. 1 and D. 2 according to which Gurdat Singh was the owner of Khasra No. 9206/4089 while Sardar Bahadur Lehna Singh was the owner of Khasra No. 9205/4089. After partition the property vested in the Central Government. One Abdul Hakeem purchased the same in an open auction and was issued a P.T.D. Exh. P. 9 showing that the land measuring 3 Marlas and 175 sq. Ft. In Khasra No. 9205/4089 was permanently transferred to him. Abdul Hakeem further sold the same to Muhammad Ishaq, vide the sale-deed Exh. P.1, dated 15-6-1965 Mst. Bilquis Begum purchased the same property from Muhammad Ishaque, vide sale-deed, dated 2-7-1965 Exh. P. 2.
It was further sold by Mat. Bilquis Begum to Sheikh Muhammad Sarwar, vide a registered deed, dated 14-12-1966 Exh. P. 4 and from Muhammad Sarwar the respondent purchased the same, vide a registered deed, dated 18-6-1969 Exh. P.
3. From the facts the learned Civil Judge concluded that the respondent had become an owner of the plot in dispute. He also held that document Exh. D.1 and D.2 showed that the property was evacuee in nature, and that was validly transferred by a P.T.D. Exh. P. 9 to the first holder. According to him, the respondent was the last vendee In the light of above, we find no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed.