2014 PLP 489 (CLC)

LAL JAN KHATTAK, J.

This civil revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5-7-2012 whereby appeal of the respondent was accepted and order dated 21-7-2011 of the learned Civil Judge-I Tank was set aside and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court for its disposal in accordance with law.

2. Short facts of the case are that respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession against the petitioners-defendants claiming their sharai shares in the legacy of their predecessor-in-interest Mir Afzal Khan. In the suit inheritance Mutation No.148 attested on 24-3-1923 and all other subsequent mutations were challenged on the ground that the plaintiffs-respondents have been deprived of their sharai shares in the legacy of their predecessor-in-interest Mir Afzal Khan.

3. Defendants appeared and they filed an application for rejection of the plaint which was contested by the respondents-plaintiffs. The learned trial Court vide order dated 21-7-2011 accepted the application of the petitioners and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed, against which the respondents went in appeal and the learned District Judge Tank vide its order dated 5-8-2012 accepted the appeal and sent the case back to the court of Civil Judge-III Tank for its disposal on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants contended that order of the learned trial Court has illegally been set aside by the learned appellate court for no good grounds as according to the learned counsel suit of the respondents was badly time-barred.

5. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs defended the order of the learned District Judge by arguing that through a well-reasoned order the learned appellate court has set aside the order of the learned trial Court which needs no interference from this court under its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Record shows that Mst. Amir Begum predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was daughter of Mir Afzal Khan who died issueless. Record further shows that the plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that deprivation of their predecessor-in-interest is not lawful and they are entitled to the shari shares of their predecessor. In the plaint there is mentioned that Mst.Amir Begum was given her sharai share in the inheritance of one of her brothers while the contention of the petitioner is that due to the custom prevailing at that time Mst. Amir Begum was not entitled to inherit the legacy of Mir Afzal Khan. It is admitted fact that no written statement has yet been filed by the defendants-petitioners and the above contention of the petitioners-defendants is yet to be proved.

7. As the case is at very initial stage as neither any written statement has been filed nor any other sort of evidence is available which could substantiate the contention of the petitioners regarding their respective plea which prevailed with the learned trial Court. It has been held by the superior courts that in the cases of inheritance courts are required to ensure that no legal heir is denied his due legal share in the estate of a deceased on technical grounds. In inheritance cases courts often decide the controversy of legacy after recording pro and contra evidence and the plaints are sparingly rejected on the point of limitation as limitation is a mixed question of law and facts which cannot be resolved without recording evidence of the parties. I have perused the order of the learned District Judge which is a well-reasoned touching the very roots of the pleas raised by the petitioners-defendants which judgment is based on the guidelines laid down by the superior courts for determination of cases relating to inheritance. Under the revisional jurisdiction this court cannot set aside the order of the learned appellate court which is based on proper appreciation of points involved and agitated therein.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any merit in the instant revision petition which being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed. JJK/574/P Petition dismissed.