1. On 11-5-1988 the petitioner tiled a suit against the respondents. In the plaint it was stated that the suit-land, described therein is owned by the Provincial Government and is in possession of the petitioner and because of the said possession it was proposed to be allotted to him. It was then alleged that the respondents are trying to take possession of the land. A decree for permanent injunction was accordingly sought restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession.
2. The suit was resisted by the respondents to file a written statement where they denied that the petitioner is in possession of the said land. On the other hand, they stated that the land has been declared to be a Katchi Abadi and the respondents being in possession have been allotted the same and that they have paid the requisite charges as well. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 15-7-1990 while a first appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhakkar on 20-2-1991.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the evidence-on-record had been misread by both the learned Courts below. Argues that whereas the learned Trial Court found his possession to be illegal, the learned Additional District Judge has wrongly found him not to be in possession.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand. argues that the only relief claimed in the suit was the permanent injunction and the same being a relief in equity was correctly refused by both the Courts below.Further supports the findings given by the learned Additional District Judge on the question of possession with reference to petitioner's own evidence.
4. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel. I have already referred to the plaint of the petitioner in some detail. In the Revenue Records available on the file the petitioner is recorded to be an unauthorised occupant of the suit-land. I find that the learned Additional District Judge has relied upon the statement of Irshad, P.W. I while holding that the petitioner is not in possession. Now this witness has stated in categorical terms that the suit-land was formerly in possession of the petitioner but is now in possession of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner insists that the witness had in fact denied the suggestion.. I have examined the certified as well as the better copy of the statement of the said witness carefully. Having thus examined the statement of the said witness I am unable to agree with the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The witness has made the said statement in categorical terms and no denial stands spelt out from the record. This being so, the suit being only for permanent injunction. was liable to be dismissed. on the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge that the petitioner is not in possession in view of the statement made by his own witness. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.