This judgment shall decide Civil Revision No. 1932 of 1994 and Civil Revision No.173 of 1995 as common questions are involved and these cases were ordered to be heard together.
2. On 28-11-1989 the petitioners filed a suit against the respondent. In the plaint it was stated that land measuring 3-1/2 Kanals described in the plaint, was owned by Mst. Bano, on whose death it devolved upon the petitioners, who are in possession and are also using the structure in the form of a room and boundary wall. It was alleged that the respondents are interfering with their possession. A declaration was sought that they are the owners in possession of the said land and the respondents be restrained from interfering with their possession. In their written statement the respondent referred to an earlier suit filed by them and denied the said allegations. Following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: (1)Whether the suit is barred under section 11 of C.P.C. And Order 2(2) of C.P.C.? OPD (2)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed for? OPP.
(3)Relief.
Evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 12-1-1993. A learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, allowed the first appeal on the respondents and dismissed the suit on 9-5-1994.
3. During the pendency of the said suit an application was filed by the respondents complaining that the petitioners had dispossessed them and have put one Mst. Sattoo Mochiani in possession.
This application, was also contested and was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 12-1-1993 while the first appeal was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha, on 9-5-1994.
4. Civil Revision No.1932 of 1994 has been filed to question the said judgment and decrees of the learned Additional District Judge, while Civil Revision No.173 of 1995 has been filed by the present respondents to question the said orders passed in the matter of the said application complaining disobedience of injunction.
5. No one has turned up for the petitioners. Having examined the records of this case I am not inclined to dismiss Civil Revision No.1932 of 1994 for non-prosecution. Learned counsel present for the respondent in the said civil revision contends that none of the parties is in possession and it is Mst. Sattoo Mochiani who was found to be in possession by the Local Commissioner appointed by the learned trial Court and as such judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect while dismissing the suit of the petitioners.
6. I have gone through the records appended with the said civil revision, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondent. Now upon a plain reading of the evidence, observations by the learned trial Court as also by the learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment, the land mentioned in the plaint forms a part of the Abadi village Mitha Luk, Tehsil Sargodha. It has been concurrently found by both the Courts below that both the parties are co sharers/owners in the said Abadi. The only ground on which the learned Additional District Judge has proceeded to reverse the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and to dismiss the suit of the petitioners in its entirety is that in their plaint they sought a relief that they are exclusive owners of the said land.
7. It is true that the said statement in the plaint or the manner in which the relief has been couched are not countenanced by the evidence on record. However, it is equally true that the petitioners could not have been I knocked out completely on the said ground. The learned Additional District Judge was possessed of jurisdiction to mould the relief according to his own finding i.e. By declaring the petitioners to be co-owners in the said land. So far as the possession is concerned, the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is without any basis. As stated by me above while referring to the facts of Civil Revision No.173 of 1995, it is the case of the respondents themselves that Mst. Sattoo Mochiani has been put in possession by the petitioners.
8. In view of the said evidence on record I do find that the learned Additional District Judge failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him while failing to record a judgment and consequently passed a decree in accordance with his own reading of the evidence on record.
9. So far as Civil Revision No. 173 of 1995 is concerned, the Courts below have concurrently found that a case of disobedience of injunction on the part of the respondents therein has not been made out. Learned counsel has been unable to point out any material on record to enable me to hold otherwise.
10. As a result of above discussion, Civil Revision No.173 of 1995 is dismissed while Civil Revision No.1932 of 1994 is partly allowed inasmuch as the petitioners/plaintiffs are declared to be the co-- owners in the suit-land. The parties are directed to maintain status quo regarding each others possession in the said Abadi area till such time a partition takes place at the instance of any of the co-owners therein by meets and bounds. No order as to costs.