' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---This petition has been filed against the judgment, dated 17th April, 1998 whereby Revision Petition No,2571 of 1989 filed by the petitioners has been dismissed.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that Settlement Commissioner, Lahore vide order, dated 29-3-1974 transferred two portions of a house to petitioners and the respondents respectively. Contents of the relevant para. From the order of the Settlement- Commissioner are reported hereinbelow:-- ' "As a result of the above findings, I cancel the PTD for the property in dispute and so also the illegal and unauthorisaed PTO bearing Machine No,227805 dated 1-2-1961 in favour of the respondents.
The property is still available to prospective transferees. It is divisible into two portions vertically as sold illegally by the respondents to two different parties. The southern portion towards the front of the house in Street No,23 is transferred to Munshi Ahmad Hassan etc.; petitioners jointly. The northern portion at the back of the front portion having separate access from the side street is transferred to Sharaf Din, etc., petitioners and four respondents-brothers jointly, as per their respective possession. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner-III, Lahore will apportion the evaluation price according to law and make recoveries from the parties. The directive of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for suo motu revision and the two revision petitions are disposed of accordingly."
3. Later on a dispute arose between the parties over the use of passage as well as latrine.
Therefore, petitioners filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed on 14th November, 1987 by the Civil Judge, Lahore. Appeal filed by the petitioner against this order came up for hearing before Additional District Judge, Lahore who also dismissed the same on 16th April, 1989. As such they invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Lahore but without success because same was dismissed on 30th April, 1995. Against this order a Petition for Leave to Appeal bearing No,935-L of 1995 was filed before this Court which was converted into appeal and allowed on 12-1-1997. It would be appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant paras. From the earlier order of this Court:-- ' "Chaudhry Khurshid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the order, dated 21-5-1991 passed by the High Court in petitioner's revision application. Relevant portion of said order reads as below:-- ' with the consent of the parties Mr. Tariq Shakoor, learned Advocate, has been appointed as Commission to inspect the disputed property and give his report respecting the observation made by the learned Settlement Commissioner, Lahore in para. 12 of his judgment passed on 29th of March, 1974.......................
' Learned counsel took us through the order, dated 29-3-1974 passed by the Settlement Commissioner, Lahore. Para. 12 of the said order reads as under:-- ..12. As a result of the above findings, I cancel the PTD for the property in dispute and so also the illegal and unauthorised PTO bearing Machine No,227805 dated 1-2-1961 in favour of the respondents. The property is still available to prospective transferees. It is divisible into two portions vertically as sold illegally by the respondents to different parties. The southern portion towards the front of the house in Street No,23 is transferred to Munshi Ahmad Hassan etc., petitioner jointly. The Northern portion at the back of the front portion having separate access from the side street is transferred to Sharaf Din, etc., petitioners and four respondent-brothers, jointly, as per their respective possession. The Deputy Settlement Commissioner-III, Lahore, will apportion the evaluation price according to law and make recoveries from the parties. The directive of the Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner for suo motu revision and the two revision petitions are disposed of accordingly...................................
Learned counsel also referred to report of the Commissioner dated 5-11-1991, the relevant portion of which reads as below:-- "..Now in my humble opinion the parties can comfortably and without any interruption from each other can peacefully enjoy their respective property rights if the excess as shown 'A' in the attached Plan is exclusively given to the party who are the owners of northern portion whereas, the excess shown 'B' in the attached plan is exclusively given to the party who owns the Southern portion........'
' Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly argued that report of the Commissioner in the context of para. 12 of the Settlement Commissioner's order, dated 29-3-1974 has not been properly discussed in the impugned judgment. Mr. Jasawar Hussain Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondents conceded to the factual position about transfer of southern portion of the property in litigation to Ahmed Hassan. He did not controvert the facts as mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner and mentioned above.
In the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the High Court. Consequently this petition is converted into appeal, which is accepted and the case is remanded to the High Court for redeciding the civil revision petition after considering the aforesaid evidence."
4. On remand of the case learned High Court again dismissed the Revision vide impugned order dated 17-4-1998.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have also examined the impugned order carefully.
' Leave is granted to examine as to whether the High Court has fully taken into consideration the directions made by this Court in the earlier order, which has been reproduced hereinabove.