1999 PLP 1365 (CLC)

3. From the divergent pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑ (1) Whether the suit is bad for non‑joinder of necessary parties? O.P.D. (2) Whether the description of suit property is not in accordance with the provisions of law? O.P.D. (3) Whether the defendant was divorced by deceased Allah Yar, if so, its effect? O. P. P. (4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree as prayed for? O.P.P. (5) Relief.

4. In support of their respective stand the plaintiffs/petitioners examined P.W.1 Muhammad Tufail, P.W.2 Shabbir Hussain, P.W.3 Muhammad Khan P.W.4 Muhammad Munir, P.W.5 Amir, P.W.6 Allah Yar and P.W.7 Muhammad Hanif. They closed their evidence after bringing on record documents Exhs.P.3 to P.6. In rebuttal the defendant/respondent examined D.W.1 Mian Bashir Ahmad Khan, D.W.2 Muhammad Shaft, D.W.3 Sultan Ahmad and appeared herself as D.W.4. Her counsel produced copy of Mutation No.321, dated 26‑1‑1986 Exh.D.2, copy of order of A.C., dated 28‑10‑1986 Exh.D.3 and then closed her evidence.

5. After going through the evidence produced by the parties the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 19‑3‑1996 which was assailed m appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree, dated 8‑9‑199'; . Hence the instant Civil Revision.

6. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

7. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/petitioners that both the Courts below have non‑suited them on the ground that the original record pertaining to divorce certificate Exh.P.l has not been brought on record by them. His contention is that petitioners could not be held responsible for the same, as the original record had been destroyed due to flood which fact stands proved from the report of Project Manager, dated 20‑2‑1993, that this Project Director had been deputed by the Court to conduct inquiry and submit his report, as such due weight should have been given to that report, that even otherwise certificate of divorce Exh.P.l was duly prepared by P.W.1 Muhammad Tufail, Secretary, Union Council and he admitted this fact.

8. Conversely the impugned judgment and decrees have been supported by the learned counsel for the defendant/respondent.

9. The only point which requires determination is, if the petitioners have succeeded in proving that defendant/respondent was divorced by her husband Allah Yar. To discharge this onus plaintiffs/petitioners have brought oral evidence and have also relied upon the certificate of divorce which was produced by Muhammad Tufail (P.W.1) in the Court of A.C. and has produced its copy Exh.P.l. It has also brought on record copy of entry brought on record through the statement of Muhammad Khan P.W.3. The stand of petitioners is that as copy of certificate of divorce Exh.P.l. has been brought on record and so document Exh.P.2, so it stands proved that Mst. Zohra Bibi was divorced by Allah Yar. This assertion of plaintiffs/petitioners stands falsified from the statement of Muhammad Khan (P.W.3) who admits that he handed over charge to Muhammad Tufail (P.W.1). He admits that enquiry about the file relating to divorce of Allah Yar and Mst. Zohra Bibi was conducted by Mian Bashir. He admits that he was not present at the time of said enquiry. He further admits that he was not sure if the file regarding divorce of Allah Yar and Mst. Zohra Bibi was genuine or forged one. He admits that he handed over the entire record without any addition or omission to Muhammad Tufail P. W .1 in 1989. He also admits that neither he prepared record of said file relating to the divorce in question nor he prepared the register pertaining to document Exh.P.2. He also admits that he took over the charge from Shabbir Hussain P. W .2. who admits that as per Exh.P.2 Allah Yar has been shown to be resident of village Kand Kanjuwan whereas Mst. Zohra Bibi has been shown to be resident of village Gadai Shah and both these fall in different Union Councils. He (P.W.2) also admits that as per record, no file regarding divorce in question was available nor there was any record that record of Union Council had been damaged due to flood, This admission of P.W.2 clearly shows that the stand of plaintiffs/petitioners that original file had been damaged due to flood is also devoid of any force. It is, thus, proved that Allah Yar never divorced his wife and certificate of divorce is a fake document which has been prepared to deprive respondent. It is also fact that mutation on the basis of which land has been devolved upon defendant/respondent, was challenged by the plaintiffs/ petitioners, but without any success. On the other hand it has come on record that A.C./Collector while disposing of their appeal ordered that a case be got registered against P.W.1 Muhammad Tufail, Secretary for preparing forged certificate of divorce EXh.P.I . This observation of A.C. gives a fatal blow to the plaintiffs/petitioners stand that certificate of divorce is a genuine document. Under these circumstances, both the Courts below have rightly disbelieved the plaintiffs/petitioners version and have passed the impugned judgments and decrees. There is no force in this civil revision and the same is hereby dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑968/L Revision dismissed.