' This revision petition by Abdur Rehman is directed against the judgment and decree of the Addl.
District Judge, Faisalabad, dated 4th of January, 1979 whereby his appeal from the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Jaranwala on 7th of January, 1977 dismissing his suit was dismissed with costs.
2. The dispute between the parties pertains to a passage in which the petitioner claims an easement right by prescription as well as by necessity. This passage is situated on the northern side of his house situated at Mauza Sarjanpura in Chak No,66/G.B. Tehsil Jaranwala, Distt.
Faisalabad. He alleged that he had been using this passage since 1947.
3. The respondents resisted the suit controverting the claim of the petitioner. According to them, the petitioner purchased the Ihata only three years prior to the institution of the suit. They denied that he had been using the passage in dispute since 1947. They raised some preliminary objections also.
4. The learned trial Court after appraising the evidence adduced by the parties for and against the issues dismissed the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioner also met the same fate. Hence this revision petition.
5. Nobody is present on behalf of the respondents in spite of their service. Therefore, the revision petition has been heard ex parte.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The reasons which have prevailed with the learned Courts below in discarding the claim of the petitidner are that on southern side of his house, a street passes and a door and a window of his under construction Baithak open towards the street, that in view of this fact the petitioner does not possess right of easement by necessity in the passage in dispute and that the evidence on record fails to prove that he had been using the passage in dispute for a period of twenty years without interruption and therefore his claim that he has acquired right of easement by prescription remains unsubstantiated. An objection was raised before the learned lower appellate Court that the level of the street on the southern side of the Ihata of the petitioner was lower than that of his Ihata but this objection was repelled with the observation that this fact did not in any manner advance the claim of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to assail the cogency of the above reasons.
7. I, therefore, find no ground for interference and dismiss this revision petition without any order as to costs.