1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, C.J.---This appeal through leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 26-3-1989; whereby the High Court dismissed the appellants' Civil Revision the facts and point noted for grant of leave to appeal are that the appellants are in possession of a Haveli covering an area of 1 kanal 7 marlas situate in village Jamalpur of Tehsil Nankana. The respondents are owners in the said village. The appellants have been in occupation of the Haveli since the time of their forefathers. On 28-6-1981, the respondents filed a civil suit for a declaration that they were owners of the Haveli. They also sought the eviction of the appellants. The trial Court dismissed the suit but on appeal, the Additional District Judge decreed it. The High Court in revision declined to interfere with the judgment of the Additional District Judge.
2. ' The Haveli, it is stated, has since been demolished and there is a piece of land only at the spot.
3. Admittedly it is located in the abadi-deh and the appellants are mueens of the village. The only question which was noted in the leave grant order was: as to whether it was not open to the respondents who are `Malkan-e-Deh' to evict the appellants. It was found necessary even at the time of grant of leave to appeal to examine this question in the light of the entries of Wajabularz and Rewaj-e-Aam and other record prepared at the time of settlement.
4. ' Leave to appeal was granted on the aforenoted point. A subsidiary question is to be examined as to whether the appellants could not purchase the land if they had satisfied the conditions imposed from the respondents' side; who are the `Malkan-e-Deh'.
5. ' Notwithstanding the implication involved in the point noted for grant of leave to appeal the learned counsel for the appellants contended; firstly, that the respondents are not the owners. And secondly, that even if they are the owners the appellants had matured their title through adverse possession. These were the pleas taken before the learned lower Courts. While granting leave to appeal no substance was found in these pleas, therefore, the leave was not granted in that behalf.The only point on which the leave to appeal was granted as noted above has not at all been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants by urging anything to support this appeal. It, accordingly, merits to be dismissed and we order accordingly.
6. Before concluding this order it needs to be noticed that a very important development took place in this case. We during arguments realised that the appellants having lived in the village as helpers of the owners and there is no indication that except the present dispute any other dispute arose between the parties. As they had lived with amity between each other, we asked the learned counsel Mr.A.Karim Malik, who himself belongs to rural area, to explore the possibility whether the respondents would not allow the appellants to retain the possession as licensees of the owners under usual conditions of occupation. We also told Mr.Malik that he shall not put any pressure on the respondents. If they agree to patch up the matter with the appellants with whom they are living 1 together for some time in the same village, it might be good for both sides and their progeny.
7. Learned counsel reported success today. He has produced a written commitment from the respondents' side permitting the appellants to retain the occupation of the property in dispute with certain conditions and limitations. The statement reade as follows:- "In the matter of the above-noted appeal pending adjudication in this Hon'ble Court, the respondents Nos.2 to 3 and legal heirs of Allah Ditta, respondent No,1, agree that those of the appellants, who are actually working as mueens in village Jamalpur, may occupy their respective portions of the Haveli to live there according to the customs of the village. However, the right of an appellant to occupy his portion in the haveli shall stand extinguished if he does not occupy it or does not raise new construction for residential purpose, within a period of 3 months on the piece of land in his occupation, if the previously constructed portion in his respective possession has fallen down, or he has willingly vacated the portion in his possession in favour of the respondents: "Drawn ByFiled By (Sd.)(Sd.)
8. A. Karim Malik, Advocate.S, Abul Asim Jafri, Advocate Supreme Court of 'Pakistan,--on-record for the respondents Bashir Mansion Turner Road, Lahore.Galaxy Law Chambers Turner Road, Lahore.
9. Dated 11-6-1991.
10. "Thumb-impressionThumb-impression Mahmoora s/o SheraNoor s/o Ahmad"
11. (Sd.)"
12. ' This is a voluntary commitment from the respondents' side signed their A.O.R. And the counsel. It also bears thumb-impressions and signatures from the respondents' side. They have despite having realised that the appellant had lost the appeal shown an act of high grace and Islamic brotherhood. How the appellants reward their this gesture the time only can tell but the Court reward the respondents by expressing its high regard and appreciation of the gesture towards an adversary (who has lost the case), in the correct Islamic sprit and ethoes.
13. ' With the recording of the afore noticed statement of commitment behalf of the respondents and the observations and remarks above made, this I appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.