' Ellahi Bux predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and respondents Nos.3 to 6 obtained 1 Kanal, 16 Marlas of land in Ihata Nos.73 and 74 in Chak No,45-F Tehsil Chishtian through Exchange Mutation No,23, dated 19-7-1972. Hashmat Ali and Fazal Muhammad respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the land in dispute measuring 13 Marlas on the basis of a sale-deed dated 12-5-1957. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 22-1-1976 and the appeal against the said judgment and decree was dismissed vide judgment dated 4-10-1977.
2. After the conclusion of this litigation, the petitioners filed a suit on 16-3-1981 for possession of land measuring 10 Marlas against respondents Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that in the garb of execution of the judgment and decree dated 22-1-1976, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have encroached upon the said area measuring 10 Marlas without authority.
3. The suit was contested by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 while the other respondents were proceeded against ex parte. It, was contended that the suit was barred by res judicata, it was time- barred and it was denied that any encroachment as alleged was made.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed;-- ISSUES
(1) Whether the suit is hit by res judicata?
(2) Whether the suit is time-barred?
(3) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee, and jurisdiction if so valuation?
(4) Whether the plaintiff has got no cause of action in view of preliminary Objection No,4 of the written statement?
(5) Whether the defendants are entitled to special costs?. If so, to what extent?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are owners of the suit property, if so, its effect?
(7) Relief.
5. After recording evidence, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 12-1-1985 dismissed the suit for possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Upon appeal, the case was remanded by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 1-2-1987 after recasting Issue No,6 which is as under:-- ISSUE NO.6 ' Whether defendants have encroached upon 10 Marlas of residential Ihata No,73 and 74 belonging to the plaintiffs. If so, its effect? OPP.
6. After remand the learned trial Court recorded evidence upon this recasted Issue No,6 (described as additional Issue No,6-A in the judgment of the trial Court). Besides the evidence recorded by the trial Court a Local Commission was also appointed with the consent of the parties to demarcate the suit Ihata and to report about the actual possession of the parties. According to the report of the Local Commissioner dated 11-6-1988, respondents Nos.1 and 2 had not encroached upon any land as alleged by the petitioners. The objections filed against the said report by the petitioners were also rejected by the trial Court. Resultantly, vide judgment and decree dated 20-2-1989 the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the petitioners.
7. Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree the petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 7-4-1990 by Additional District Judge, Bahawaluagar.
The present Civil Revision has been directed against the above cited concurrent findings of fact of both the learned lower Courts.
8. Syed Masud Ahmed Gillani, Advocate, learned counsel appearing in support of this revision petition has argued that the trial Court in post-remand proceedings erred in recording findings on all the issues. According to him vide judgment dated 1-2-1987 the learned Additional District Judge, Bahawalnagar in the earlier round of litigation had recast Issue No,6 and remanded the case with the direction that he should decide the case afresh in accordance with law after recording evidence on this issue.
9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it was only the recast Issue No,6 (treated as Issue No,6-A) in the subsequent proceedings that the trial Court was required to record its fresh findings.
10. Obviously, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force. The learned Appellate Court vide judgment dated 1-2-1987 had correctly recast the Issue No,6 and had remanded the case for a decision afresh on the whole case in accordance with law. Although the recording of evidence may have been restricted to the recast Issue No,6 alone the learned trial Court in the post remand proceedings was free to decide the whole case afresh. No illegality or irregularity of procedure has been committed by the learned trial Court in the post remand proceedings. Similarly, the judgment and decree rendered by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 7-4-1990 is in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any non-reading or misreading of evidence on the record.
11. As a result there is no merit in this civil revision which is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.