' The petitioner through this revision petition has assailed the order of the learned Additional District Judge to the extent of direction to approach the Revenue Authorities with regard to possession of 17 Marlas of land (part of the suit property) which was the subject-matter of the litigation in between the parties before the Courts below
2. The facts in brief are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents Saeed Muhammad was the plaintiff before the trial Court and had filed a suit for possession of land measuring one Kanal and 5 Marlas with the averments that he is owner of the property and the petitioner/defendant illegally occupied the property claimed by him. The petitioner/defendant contested the suit on various grounds including that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents did file a suit for possession of the property to the same effect as in this suit and with regard to the same property which is the subject-matter of the suit which was got dismissed as withdrawn hence the present suit, was not proceed able. The defendant apart from this situation claimed adverse possession over the property. The trial Court from the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues. ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit property after the removal of structure there from? OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action? OPD.
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD.
(4) Whether the suit is time-barred? OPD.
(5) Whether the suit is not correctly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD.
(6) Whether the defendant has become owner of the suit property by way of adverse possession for more than 12 years? OPD.
(7) Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs, 5,000 as special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPD.
(8) Relief.
3. The trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that the suit of the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents was liable to be dismissed and dismissed it accordingly on 26-2-1991. The predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents filed A an appeal before the First Appellate Court from where it was dismissed on 20-5-1996, but the direction was given to approach the Revenue Authorities with regard to the remaining area that is 17 Marlas of land and as the petitioner had obtained possession for 8 Marlas of land in consequence of a judgment and decree passed in his favor under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and as such this area was excluded from the suit property and it continued to be in possession of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard and the record available with this Court has been perused with their assistance. It is established on record that the parties had to go in the litigation for three times. On one occasion predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents filed a suit for possession of partition of the property claimed in this suit in which on the consequence of relief having been availed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents that suit was got dismissed as having borne fruit/dismissed as withdrawn. In the other suit which was brought by the present petitioner for claiming possession of 8 Marlas of land (a portion of the suit property) with the averments of the suit property of eight Marlas of land was in his possession and the defendants/respondents have taken illegal possession of the property. The said suit was decreed in favor of the present petitioner and he has consequently obtained the possession of this property at the time when the present petitioner's possession of the property as abovesaid was disturbed.
He also got F.I.R. Recorded against the respondents/ defendants and it was alleged by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents that at this time the petitioner obtained possession of this property unlawfully. It was also alleged that the possession of the property was given to the petitioner on lease for temporary use but the petitioner refused to hand over the possession. The predecessor-ininterest of the plaintiff's filed the present suit for possession on the basis of above averments. The respondents could not prove their ownership before the Courts below with regard to 17 Marlas of land. The respondents also could not prove their plea of having given the said suit property to the petitioner for temporary use. Both the Courts below concluded that the plaintiff/respondent have failed to prove his ownership and not entitled for possession. There are concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below in this regard. Neither the case of non-reading of evidence or misreading of evidence on record has been established. There is no merits of the revision petition and the petition is liable to dismissal. There is no scope for interference by this Court in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, but as the petitioner has alleged that the findings with regard to the dismissal of the suit of the respondents be maintained but the directions passed by the learned Additional District Judge, to approach the Revenue Authorities was uncalled for and be set aside.
5. In view of the above discussion as the question of ownership of the property and entitlement to its possession was in question, the question of title is to be determined by the civil Court and after the civil Court had determined this question which findings have been maintained by the Appellate Court. The observation/direction by the learned Additional District Judge, to approach the Revenue Authorities was uncalled for and was without any legal basis. Hence the present revision petition is disposed of in following manners. That the revision petition to this extent that the direction by the Additional District Judge to approach the Revenue Authorities was uncalled for is allowed and the said direction is set aside, otherwise the revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.