ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Civil Revision No. S – 114 of 2010

Date of hearing

Order with signature of Judge

Hearing of case

1. For hearing of main case

2. For hearing of CMA No.458/2010 (Stay)

30-08-2021

Mr. Muhammad Asim Malik, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr. Mehboob Ali Wassan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

This Revision Application has been filed against judgment and decree dated 16-12-2009 and 21-12-2009 passed in F.C. Suit No. 02 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gambat and judgment and decree dated 18-03-2010 and 24-03-2010 passed by the 2^nd Additional District Judge, Khairpur in Civil Appeal No. 21 of 2010, whereby both the Courts below have passed the orders against the applicants.

Heard learned Counsel and perused the record.

The applicants had filed Suit for declaration & injunction, and sought the following prayer:

a. That this Honourable Court may be pleased to declare that the act of construction of wall and fixing the doors and fixing of pipes in to the plot in suit and further attempt of defendants for more construction over the plot in suit of the plaintiffs is illegal void and nullity in the eye of law.

b. To issue mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove away the wall doors and drainage pipes from the plot in suit.

c. To issue permanent injunction restraining the defendants from raising the further construction over the plot in suit and to re‑fix pipes and doors towards or in the plot in suit and not to reconstruct the wall thereon after removal thereof and they be further restrained not to interfere in any manner with the rights interests possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit plot.

d. To award costs of the suit.

e. To award any other relief may deem fit and proper.

The Trial Court settled the following issued and passed the judgment and decree by dismissing the Suit of the plaintiffs:

1. Whether just on the northern side of the house of plaintiffs there was an open plot, which was part and parcel of the house purchases by predecessor in interest of plaintiffs through registered sale deed in 1997?

2. Whether the said open plot has been occupied by the defendants annexing the plot of defendant No.3?

3. Whether the defendants have illegally constructed, fixed the damage pipes and doors in the suit plot?

4. Whether the defendants have closed the entrance of plaintiffs toward northern side of the house of plaintiffs?

5. Whether there is no any existence of suit plot owned by plaintiffs?

6. Whether the plaintiffs and defendants are in legal possession of their owned purchased area?

7. Whether the suit of plaintiffs is barred by law?

8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief claimed by them?

9. What should the decree be?

On perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court, it has come on record that insofar as Issue No.1 and the sale deed, on the basis of which, the Applicants / plaintiffs were claiming ownership of the open plot on the northern side of their property is concerned, has not been proved through any independent witnesses including any official witness. Mere statement to the effect that as per their Fathers version the plot in question was also part of the Sale Deed, would not suffice. Secondly, it has also come on record that PW-2 namely Muhammad Shah Zaidi had not supported the version as well as the claim of the plaintiffs.

In the circumstances, the Trial Court was fully justified in dismissing the Suit of the plaintiffs. In Appeal also, the applicants failed, therefore, these two concurrent findings of the two Courts below do not warrant any interference in this Revisional jurisdiction; hence, this Civil Revision is dismissed along with pending application.

J U D G E

Abdul Basit