' Atta Muhammad, Dost Muhammad etc., sons and daughter of Muzaffar Khan filed a suit against Atta Muhammad Khan etc., the son and daughters of Ghazi Khan, for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in any manner with the title and possession of the plaintiffs over house No,G/46 situated in Mohallah Alam Khel, Mianwali City. It was dismissed by learned Civil Judge Mianwali side judgment dated 20-6-1978 and the appeal filed by the plaintiff was accepted and suit decreed on 5-10-1981. This is a revision petition against the same.
2. The judgments are so confusing and without appreciation of the actual physical aspects at the spot that both the learned counsel frankly stated as the bar that it was a case 'it remand to the learned lower Court to determine the real point in dispute between the parties. After having heard them and gone through the record, their request in this behalf seems to be genuine.
3. The plaintiffs, respondents herein, claimed that they were the owners in possession of house No,G/46 bounded on the north by the house of defendants, vacant plot of Abdul Rehman son of Muhammad Khan and a thoroughfare. The common boundary of the houses of the plaintiffs and the defendants was mentioned as 44 feet in para 2 of the plaint. According to the plaint a site .Plan had also been filed therewith indicating the common' boundary as It was further pleaded in para 3 that the defendants were bent upon and had started encroaching 5 feet strip on the south of This was denied and issues settled.
4. It is to be pointed out that no site plan with the plaint seems to have been filed and if at all any was filed the same is missing from the record. Hence the plaint is thirsty. In the year 1933 there was litigation with respect to the defendants' house and its southern boundary is measuring 42 feet + 8 feet common passage, and on the south of it is indicated the vacant plot of Muzaffar Khan lumberdar (perhaps Muzaffar Khan, the father of Atta Muhammad, etc. Respondents/plaintiffs).
Even otherwise it has come on the record that the house of the defendants is on the north of the house of the plaintiffs. So the real point to be determined was whether the defendants had made or were bent upon encroaching 5 feet towards the south in the house of the plaintiffs. Neither any issue in this respect was made nor any evidence led.
5. There is thus no alternative but to accept the revision petition and set aside the decree of the two Courts below. The case is remanded to the learned trial Court with the direction that the pleadings be got completed (with reference to the site plan mentioned in the plaint), better statements of the parties recorded, to bring out the real dispute, if still subsisting and then to decide the case afresh in the light of the observation made above. Parties are left to bear their own costs. They are directed to appear in the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge on 24-7-1991 to whose Court the case is transferred for disposal within three months of the receipt of the record. Record be sent down immediately.