MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- Petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit against the respondents/defendants No.3 to 6 claiming that while deciding appeal of respondents No.3 and 4, the S.D.O, by amending warabandi in dispute, has not given any opportunity of hearing to them.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioners and respondents No.3 to 6 were irrigating their land from Mogha No. 42539 of Rajbah Lak, Tehsil & District Sargodha. Petitioners have scattered land and had wari through Nikka No. 233/6. As this was facilitated to irrigate their scattered land.
3. Respondents No.3 to 6 gave an application for the amendment of above warabandi on 16.10.1977 to the S.D.C.O, who amended warabandi. Respondents No.3 and 4 filed separate appeal before the D.C.O. Rasul Div.
4. At the time of deciding this appeal, the D.C.O, did not hear the petitioner and no notice was served upon them. The petitioner challenged the appellate order through suit which was decreed in their favour. However, appeal filed by the respondents was accepted on 7.5.1985. Hence this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the findings of the Appellate Court are erroneous and against the record. In support of his contention, he has read the statement of PW-2, an official of Canal Department, who brought the original record and stated that though there is notice for 29.1.1978 but there is no notice regarding service of the petitioner for 9.2.1978, the date on which, decision of the appeal by D.C.O, was made.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has referred to cross-examination of this witness and states that as admitted, there is letter with regard to the intimation, whereby, it is established that though telegraph No. 4520, dated 28.1.1978, the petitioner was apprised regarding the date of hearing i.e. 9.2.1978.
7. Learned counsel has drawn my intention to para No.5 of impugned judgment of the Appellate Court to contend that respondents Sardara and Muhammad Hayat were served in this case for 2.9.1978 and being the family member, the service of others also would be deemed to have been affected.
8. I have perused the record and judgments of both the Courts below and have not been able to find any material to establish that the petitioner was served for 2.9.1978. Learned counsel for the respondent has thus drawn my attention to the statement of patwari. Even from this statement, it is not clear that the service was effected for 2.9.1978. Consequently, this evidence is of no help to the respondent.
9. In view of the above, I accept this revision petition, set aside the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court and upheld the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. No order as to costs.