P L D 1965 W (PLP)

‑(Reference to civil Court) brother and sister rival parties‑Sister claiming her share in their father's estate, succeeding in Revenue Court in getting case remanded‑Brother contending before Board that if she claimed to be daughter of his father s should have gone to‑civil Court‑Board leaving brother to nave recourse to civil Court, if lie liked, in view of sister's success in Revenue Court in getting case remanded. Abdur Rahman for Petitioner. Nobody is present for the respondents in spite of the fact that' they were duly served. One Mehnga who is present states that he has a power of attorney for the respondent. It is true that such a power of attorney was given to him for appearing before the Collector and the Commissioner but no such power of attorney has been given in my Court. The proceedings against the respondents will be ex parte. This‑order will dispose of the following two revisions:‑ (1) Ali Muhammad and others v. Mst. Siran and others. (2) Ali Muhammad and others v. Mst. Siran and others. These two revisions have been filed against an order dated the 25th of March 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the appeals preferred by the petitioners were rejected. The facts of the case are that, when one Abdul Qadir died, a mutation of inheritance bearing No. 185 was sanctioned in Chak No. 58/GB and another bearing No. 209 in Chak No. 98/GB. These mutations were sanctioned on 24-2‑1960. Mst. Siran Bib; respondent filed an appeal against the first mutation oil 11‑8‑1962 and against the other on 15‑10‑1962. It was alleged that the brother in whose favour the two mutations were sanctioned, kept her in the dark although they were sending her the price of her share from the produce of land of Abdul Qadir deceased. This was taken as a ground for extending limitation and, in view of the evidence produced before the learned Collector, the delay was condoned. Both the appeals were accepted and, the cases were remanded for fresh decision after hearing both the parties. The petitioners filed two appeals before the Additional‑Commissioner but they were rejected. Hence two revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, His first contention is that the appeals were time‑barred and the delay should have not been condoned. The learned Collector mainly relied on the postcard Exh. PA. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain that the amount therein was sent as the price of a tin of ghee. An examination of the contents, however, shows that the price of the ghee was only Rs.

107. An additional amount of Rs. 48 was sent as the share of the sister The learned counsel for the petitioners has further explained that this share of the sister meant that portion of the money which formed part of the price of ghee but was to be given to the sister on account of the price of the ghee sent by her. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. The weight of the ghee is given and the rate is also given. It is also clear that a tin of ghee was sent the price of which worked out to be Rs. 107‑

7. If any portion thereof was to be given to Mst. Siran Bibi, it would have been out of Rs.

107. There was no justification for sending any additional amount) unless it was the price of the share of the produce as alleged by Mst. Siran Bibi. In these circumstances, the learned Collector was perfectly justified in condoning the delay. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that if Mst. Siran Bibi claimed to be the daughter of her deceased father, she would have gone to the civil Court. So far as the present case is concerned, this is not relevant. Mst. Siran Bibi went in appeal and, after duly considering the evidence produced before him, the learned Collector condoned the delay and passed an order. The petitioners went in appeal but the appeal was rejected. 1t is still open to the petitioners to go to the civil Court if they like. The respondents have chosen to have their remedy in the Revenue Court and they cannot be denied their right of doing so. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. Both the revisions fail and are rejected hereby. A. H. Petitions rejected.