Law: N.W. F. P. Courts Regulation (I of 1931)

Section: 34(b)

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 27

  (a) West Pakistan Civil Courts Ordinance (II of 1962) N.W. F. P. Courts Regulation (I of 1931),   S. 34 (b), proviso (iv) Revision petitions filed before enforcement of Ordinance have to be heard as revisions under Regulation.   Pir Bakhsh v. Ajaib Gul and others P L D 1962 Pesh. 61 ref.   (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),   O. XLI, r. 27 Addirional evidence-Party not availing opportunity of producing additional evidence in trial Court-Cannot 6e allowed to produce same and improve his case at appellate stage.   (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),   S. 115-Discretion exercised by lower Court-Not to be interfered in revision unless wrongly exercised.   Mst. Durga Tawary v. Ramrati Kuer and another A I R 1937 Pat. 584 ref.   (d) Registration Act (XVI of 1908)   S. 50, proviso-Sale of land-Unregistered deed prior in time but without possession Cannot have precedence over subsequent registered deed-Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 53-A.   Dates of hearing: 19th October 1964 and 23rd April 1965   JUDGMENT   This civil rivision by Pordil defendant arises out of a suit for possession of land. The suit was resisted by Pordil and Sarfraz Khan defendants. They maintained that the land in suit belonged to them. They pleaded in the alternative that they have become its owners by adverse possession.   The trial Court found that Pordil was in adverse possession of 9 kanals 3 marlas ofland, comprised in Khasras Nos. 2212 to 2214 for more `than twelve years. It was further found that Pordil was entitled to land measuring 29 kanals J marls which he was proved to have purchased. The claim of Pordil in respect of land measuring 17 kanals 10J marlas which he alleged to have purchased by an unregistered deed (Exh. D. 4.) was disallowed by the Court of first instance on the ground that the deed did not confer any right on Pordil. The claim of the plaintiffs was decreed to the extent of 74 kanals 71J marlas out of the suit land. The parties were left to bear their own costs. The plaintiffs did not appeal. Similarly, Sarfaraz, defendant No. 2 who was held entitled to land measuring 3 kanals 14 marlas…