2/27/2021 2020 C L C 2078

2020 C L C 2078
[Lahore]
Before Ayesha A. Malik, J
HAFIZ MUHAMMAD AMAN ULLAH----Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD ANEES JAVED----Respondent
Civil Revision No.133552 of 2018, decided on 5th June, 2020.
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss.42, 8 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXVI, Rr.10---
Commission for local investigations---Procedure---Un-signed report---Scope---
Petitioner filed suit for declaration, possession along with consequential relief of
permanent injunction---Trial Court dismissed the suit---Appellate Court on an
application for additional evidence ordered for the appointment of local
Commission with consent of the parties for demarcating the property---Local
Commission submitted the report, however, on the objections of respondent the
same was set aside and a fresh local Commission was ordered to be appointed---
Petitioner filed review application against said order, which was dismissed---
Validity---Review application was dismissed on the ground that the report of local
Commission was incomplete as there was no report of the revenue authorities
supporting the findings of the local Commission nor were there any documents
appended with the report on the basis of which local Commission had made his
report---Impugned order had been made after consulting the record---Petitioner had
admitted before the High Court that the report submitted by local Commission was
not a signed document--- Revision petition was dismissed.
Ch. Hafiz ur Rehman Atif for Petitioner.
Muzammil Hussain Qasmi for Respondent.
ORDER
AYESHA A. MALIK, J.----Through the instant petition, the Petitioner has
impugned orders dated 1.11.2017 and 20.12.2017 passed by Additional District
Judge, Chiniot.
2. The basic facts of the case are that the Petitioner filed a suit for declaration
along with possession with reference to land falling in Khata No.2519/2498, Khasra
No.15804/9883/2 land measuring 10-M 0-S 15/90th share measuring 01-M 06-S
and Khata No.2510/2489, Khasra No.9882 land measuring 02-K 0-M 79/432th
share measuring 08-M 07-S total land measuring 10-M 04-S according to
jamabandi for the year 1999-2000 situated in Chah-Isawali Mouza Chiniot along
with consequential relief of permanent injunction. The Respondent contested the
suit which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2015
passed by Civil Judge 1st Class, Chiniot. Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an
appeal before the Additional District Judge, Chiniot and in the appeal moved an
application for additional evidence. The court ordered for the appointment of local
commission on 28.3.2017 with the consent of both the parties for demarcating the

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2020L5048 1/3
2/27/2021 2020 C L C 2078

property in order to settle the dispute between the parties. The local commission
submitted its report, however the Respondent moved objections against the said
report of the local commission essentially stating that they were never issued notice
or called for the purposes of demarcation. The court on hearing the objections of
the Respondent, set aside the report of the local commission and ordered for a fresh
local commission to be appointed vide impugned order dated 1.11.2017. Feeling
aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a review application calling for recall of order dated
1.11.2017 which application was dismissed vide impugned order dated 20.12.2017
against which the instant Civil Revision has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the application filed by the
Petitioner for additional evidence simply sought the demarcation of the property
which both parties agreed to vide order dated 28.3.2017. Learned counsel argued
that there was no reason to appoint a fresh local commission as the original local
commission had filed his report and the contention of the Respondent that they did
not participate in the demarcation process is totally against the record.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent argued that the
Respondent was never issued any notice to participate in the demarcation
proceedings nor was he called upon at the time of demarcation and that the report
was filed without the signatures of the local commission. The court duly considered
this matter and set aside that report and appointed a fresh local commission since
the report in question was not made in accordance with law.
5. As per the record, the parties requested for demarcation of the suit property
through the appointment of the local commission vide order dated 28.3.2017. The
Petitioner then moved an application calling for the local commission to appear as a
witness in the court with respect to the report of the local commission. However,
this application was dismissed on the ground that report of the local commission
has not been tendered and at this stage there is no requirement of calling him as a
court witness. In the said order the court concluded that the local commission has
tendered a report which has not been accepted by the court on account of the fact
that the Respondent was not issued notice to participate in the demarcation process.
The Court concluded that there is nothing available on the record in support of the
Petitioners' contention that notices were served, therefore a fresh local commission
was ordered to demarcate the property vide order dated 1.11.2017. Against this
order, the Petitioner filed a review application seeking to have the order of
1.11.2017 recalled which was duly considered by the court and dismissed vide the
impugned order dated 20.12.2017 on the ground that the report of the local
commission is incomplete as there is no report of the revenue authorities supporting
the findings of the local commission nor are there any documents appended with
the report on the basis of which the local commission made his report appended.
Therefore both orders have been made by consulting the record. During the course
of arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner admitted that the report filed by the
local commission was not a signed document and he was unable to show that the
contention of the Respondent that he was not associated in the demarcation process
was incorrect.
6. In view of the aforesaid, the instant Revision Petition is dismissed.
SA/M-127/L Petition dismissed.

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2020L5048 2/3
2/27/2021 2020 C L C 2078

https://www.pakistanlawsite.com/Login/PrintCaseLaw?caseName=2020L5048 3/3