Aurangzaib Jehangiri Vs TMA Mansehra

P E :; I L,,t WA R I I I G I I (' O U tt 7' /1 R ti O t' 1'A U.l t) RIiNCII

.IU 1) l(' ll L 1 ) 1.. P1l R7' il,l ltl\il J SI IIJIiT'

CR No. 577-A/2009.

c/, Dote o/ hetring 27.I0.2022.

Petitioner/s (Aurungz.eb & others) hy Mr. Sujjad Ahmad Ruml, l1!v6s111g.

Resporulent/s (Tehsil Municipul Administrotittn Monsehra) hJ, Mr. J unaid Anwor Khan, Adwtcule.

FAZAL SUI]HAN J. 'l'his civil rc\.,lslon pctition is filcd under scction ll5 of(lpC bv thc pctitioncrs against thc judgrncnt and dccrcc dated: 08.07.2009 passcd by rhe lcamcd I)istrict Judgc, Manschra vidc which though civil appcal No. 75113 filcd by rhc ? rcspondcnt No. I against thc judgmcnt and dccrcc datcd: 27.11.2006 in suit No. 406/1 was dismisscd but dirccted thc pctitioncrs and proforma respondcnts not to cxclusivcly occupy thc suit land.

2.Concisc l-acts o1'thc casc as narratcd in thc instant rcvision pctition arc that onc I.jaz Akhtar Khan bcing hissadar owncr in suil khasra No 2867 rrcasuring ll kanals 3 marlas (suit propcrty) lilcd a sr.ri1 against rcspondcnt No. l scr:king thcrcin tloclaralior.r. pcnltancnt

injunctions and posscssion b1, way ol'rcrloving building n-ratorial liom thc suit propcrl).

I{cspondcnt No. I contcstcd thc suit b1 liling writtcn statcmcnt. and alicr liarring ol'issucs and rccording o1' cvidcncc. thc lcarncd trial Court dccrccd thc suit in lavor ol'plaintill'thcrcin vidc judgmcnl datcd: 2U.04.2000. An appcal w,as filccl against thc said judgmcnt. shich *.as acccptcd and casc u'as rcmandcd back lbr implcadnrcnt ol' olhcr orvncrs. lhc said judgntcnt *,as challcn-qctl bcforc this Courl by tiling civil rcvision, whcrc .judgmcnt and dccrcc ol'lcarncd appcllatc Court *as rnodilicd b1'allou'ing thc pcritioncrs to lilc thc suil in rcprcscnlativc capacill'. I,laintill' thcrcin thcn Iilcd arnondcd plaint. u,hcrc-alicr.

? rcspondonl No.l lllod writtcn statcmcnt. 'l'hc lcarncd lrial Court vidc its judgmcnt dalcd:

27 .11.2006 grantcd dccrcc in lavor ol'pctitioncrs.

rvhich is challcngcd through appcal br' thc rcspondcnt No. 1, rvhich rvas disrnisscd vidc .iudgmcnt datcd: 08.07.2009. horvcvcr, in para No. 20 of thc said judgmcnt. thc lcarncd appcllatc Court concludcd as lirllou,ing

lle.fbre parting wilh thi.s jutlgnent I deem it proper lo add thut suit

land is neither plaintil/ & proforma de/bndants nor anyone

else being co-owner in the sttit

land will occupving the suit land willtoul exclusively, nor w-ill oppropriale it./br his ovn bene[it and wilhout express con.senl and

permission of olher co-owner.t

which is owned by lorge number of people including old, minor antt

v)omen, there;fbre, ne il her plo inl i./l & pro;t'orma de/bndants nor anyone else being co-owner in lhe suit

land will occupying the suit land wilhoul exclusively, nor will appropriale il for his own bene;fit ? otld r)itllottt express tonsenl and permission oJ ol her co-owners

'lhc pctitioncrs bcing onlv aggricvcd liom thc abovc dircctions lilcd this civil rcvision pctition

3.Argumcnts hcard and rccord poruscd.

4.ltccord rcvoals that Muharnmacl l1at. Akhtar Khan institutcd a suil lor doclaration.

pcrmancnt injunction and posscssion in rcspcct ol' thc suit propcrly, and during cvidcncc l)atwari I Ialqa brought rcvonuc rccord ford jumabondi l'or thc )'car 1969-10lix I'W-l/l and list ol-ouncrs ol' Shamilot Deh l:.x I'}W- 112 consistin!r ol' I0 shccts.

Admittcdly. thc suit propcny is Shamlilut Deh

and during cross cxamination Aurangzcb Jchangiri. attorncy for pclilioncrs admiltcd that thi: numbcr o1- ou,ncrs arc 500/600 pcrsons. 'l'hough, thc trial Court granlcd dccrcc in lavor of pctitioncr. but appeal against thc judgmcnl was allowcd lvilh dircclions to add all thc or;r'ncrs. A civil rcvision against thc judgr:rcnt passcd IN appcal was allorvcd, allowing pctitioncr to lilo rcprcscntativc suit which was subscquonlly dccrccd bu1 in appcal thc appollalc Court passcd thc abovc ordcr, whioh is no'"v impugncd through this civil rcvision:

5.Ordcr I I{ulo 8 ol CI'C has prcsoribcd proccdurc Ibr liling rcproscntalivo sui1, u'hich rcads as lbllowing:

One person may sue or deJbnd on hehalf of ull in same interest (l ) Where there ore numerous persons having lhe same inleresl in one suil, one or more of such person.\ ma.N, with lhe permission o;f the Courl, sue or be sued, or may defend, in such suit, on belrulJ of or Jbr the benefit of olL persons so inleresled. Bul lhe Courl shall in sttch case give, al lhe plaintilJ's exPense, notice of the inslilulion oJ'lhe suit to aLL such persons eilher by personal service or, where Jiom lhe number of persons or any olher cause such service is nol reasonablY

l

praclicable, by public adverlisemenl, as the Courl in each case may direcl.

6.'l'hc said rule rcquircs complianoc of ccrlain conditions 1o bc lullllled bclbrc filing suit under Ordcr i I{ulc 8 CI'C, which includcs lirstly that thcrc must be numerous pcrsons, sccondly, thc said pcrsons musl havc thc samc intcrcst and thirdly. that pcrmission lor filing such suit is obtained llom the Court. In addition to thc abovc.

as thc Court has 1o scrvc noticc of liling ol'such suil on bchalf oI all thc persons having intcrcsl in thc suit, thcrcforc, plaintiff shall [-rlc complclc lisl ol thc co-owncrs intercstod in thc proporty. Such noticc is cilhcr to bc scrvcd pcrsonally or by ? publioalion through advcrtiscmcnl and that too at plaintill's cxpcnsc. In thc prcscnt casc, though pctitioncrs wcrc granled pormission lor filing rcprescnlalivc suit bu1 list ol all thc pcrsons having intcrcsl in thc suil propctly, was no1 Iurnished and thereforc, no noticc vvas issucd 1o thcm hcncc. the basic condition lor liling suil in rcprosonlativc capacity was not complicd. Iiecord shows that somc o1'1hc co-owncrs ttl Shamlal wcrc implcadod and in thal caso. thc appcllatc Courl bcing vigilant. has passcd ordcr as rncntioncd in para No.20 ol thc impugncd judgmcnl. Para 5 of thc amcndcd plainl sccms 1o

(r

bc aimcd 1o oust all othcr co-owncrs ol Shoml(tt and thcrclbrc, 1tl proloct thc valuablc rights ol'all thc olhcr co-owncrs. thc lcarncd appcllalc Cou( w'hilc dismissing thc appoal ol' thc rcspondcnt No.I has addcd para 20 thcrcin, which in no rvar damagc thc rights ol.pctitionors rathcr thc right to usc or Ibr dcriving boncllt o[' thc suit land i1 *'as madc conditional 10 gct thc cxprcss conscnt and pcrn'rission ol' olhcr co-owncrs. In this rcspccl.

rcliancc can also bc placcd on thc casc titlcd:

Muhammod tlzam and 2 olhers-Vs-Muhammad Ilussain and 2 olhers rcporlcd in 2014 Ml,l) 1155. whcrcin. it was hcld that:

lfler hearing the argumenls, I have gone lhrough lhe record and tlte

- precedenl referred carefully. It is an uclmittetl facl lhul lhe dispuled land is Shamlat Deh about which the civil

Courls hove limiled jurisdiction and cannol granl permonenl injunclion

againsl all lhe sltareholders v, hr.t possesrt the land in lhe estate as well It hos been held in lhe precedent 2009 SCMII 158 that ttnless the

Shamlal Deh lond was parlilioned by meles and bounds by revenue

aulhorilies, no specdic share can be

declared lo be in possession of any land owner. In the said case of the precedenl lhe IIon'ble apex Courl o/ lK&K modiJied the decree in favor o{ the par11, in possession.

7.'l'his being thc situation, it is hcld that the impugned condition addcd to thc judgmcnt dated: Oti.07.2009, passcd by lcarncd Dislrict Judgc Manschra, is ncithcr illcgal nor rvithout jurisdiction ancl thcrclbrc, cannot bc disturbcd, hcncc, this civil rcvision, bcing without nay mcrits, stands disrnisscd.

An n o unced.

JUDGE