This revision petition impugning the validity of the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 6th May, 1981, dismissing the suit of the petitioner for issuance of permanent injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with his (petitioner's) possessory rights over the property in dispute covering an area of two Marlas and forming part of the land entered in Khasra No.2849, situate in Khoie Miran estate, tehsil and district Lahore, and of the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated the 7th June, 1981. Dismissing in limine the petitioner's appeal against the decision of the learned trial Court arises out of the following circumstances. On the 27th January, 1967, the Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 6 of the West.Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1959 took-over and assumed administration, control, management and maintenance of the waqf properties attached to the shrine of Hazrat Miran Hussain Sahib, spread over an area of 5 Kanals, 2 Marlas and 73 square feet bearing Khasras Nos.2810 and 285fl (according to the Jamabandi of 1957/58), situate in the revenue estate of Khoie Miran. The petitioner, Muhammad Nizam--ud-Din, is an employee of the respondent Auqaf Department of the Punjab Government and is serving as Khatib. He is in occupation of a house standing on an area of two Marlas. Whereas the respondent claims that the house forms part of the property attached to the shrine taken over by it, the petitioner asserts that the house lies on the land of Khasra No.2849 of Khoie Miran estate and that it is not included in the property taken-over by the respondent.
2. The learned trial Court, without settling issues on the controversial points and without allowing an opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases, dismissed the suit on the sole ground that it did not find mention of Khasrn number 2,849 in the Jainabandi. It remarked that Khasra No. 2849 was non-existed and, therefore, it considered the petitioner---s case to be groundless.
3. The petitioner produced a copy of the Jamabandi for the year 1967-68 containing entries with respect to Khasra No.2849 before the learned appellate Court below but the learned Court was not favourably impressed because the petitioner was not shown as owner or in possession of the land given in Khasra No.2849. Moreover, the learned Court was of the view that the suit as framed by the petitioner was not maintainable in civil Court. Consequently it dismissed the appeal in limine.
4. The petitioner has produced before this Court copy of Jamabandi of Khasra amarati as well as of Jamabandi of the revenue department. In both these documents Khasra No.2849 alongwith the land it represents is clearly mentioned. The learned counsel for the respondent concedes that no part of the land bearing Khasra No.2849 was ever taken over by the respondent. At least the petitioner has a right to establish that the house in dispute stands on the land of Khasra No.2849.
The learned trial as well as the appellate Courts below have proceeded under wrong notions to non-suit him. Their decisions are not in accord with the law and are not sustainable. The petition is, therefore, accepted, the impugned judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below are set aside and the suit is remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding it afresh accordingly to law after framing proper issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence. The parties have been directed to appear before the learned trial Court of Civil Judge, Lahore, on the 12th December, 1988.
The parties are left to bear their own costs.
5. As the litigation is fairly old it needs to be brought to a speedy end, Accordingly the learned trial Court is directed to give the suit priority over other cases, dispose it of within six months and report compliance to this Court.