2013 PLP 1055 (YLR)

CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.

This civil revision has been directed against judgment and decree dated 8-3-2007 passed by Malik Muhammad Nawaz Samatiah, learned Additional District Judge, Rajanpur Camp at Rojhan who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner-plaintiff and upheld the judgment and decree dated 24-6-2006 passed by Rana Muhammad Khan, learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Rojhan whereby the suit of the petitioner-plaintiff was dismissed.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration along with permanent injunction by alleging that the petitioner-plaintiff is daughter of Mst. Kundan Mai. Mst. Kundan Mai was owner in possession of the landed property situated in previous Khata Nos.196, 197, 198 and 124 and present Khata Nos.179, 180, 181 and 19 share 32/1224 and 4482/8694, measuring one marla, three kanals, 12 marlas, one marla and 224 kanals, 12 marlas total land measuring 227 kanals, 16 marlas situated in Mauza Umar Kot, Tehsil Rojhan District Ranjanpur. She belongs to Shia sect and according to Shia sect, the petitioner-plaintiff is sole owner as legal heir of Mst. Kundan deceased Mutation No.177 dated 13-4-1991 to the extent of 1/2 share given to Mst. Jindan and Mst. Mehran daughters of Khameesa being illegal is liable to cancellation and entries in the Revenue Record need to be corrected.

3. The suit was contested. The learned trial Court after framing of issues and recording of evidence of the parties dismissed the suit of the petitioner vide judgment dated 24-6-2006. Feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner filed an appeal which also met the same fate. Hence this civil revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below are result of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The impugned judgments are against the law and facts. Both the learned lower courts have failed to consider the petitioner's case in its true perspective. Learned counsel avers that it stands fully established from the record that the petitioner professed Shia sect. In support of her version, the petitioner produced as many as three witnesses in addition to documentary evidence. Both the learned courts below did not bother to go through the evidence The petitioner also filed an application under Order LXI, Rule 27, C.P.C. for producing additional evidence but without deciding the same, the learned appellate court passed the final judgment which is not warranted under the law. The valuable rights of the petitioner are involved, therefore, the civil revision be accepted, impugned judgments and decrees passed by both the learned courts below be set aside and the matter be remanded to the learned appellate court with the direction to decide the application of the petitioner for additional evidence first and then pass the final judgment. In support of his assertions, learned counsel has relied on the dictums laid down in the cases titled as "Messrs M.A. Chaudhry and 3 others v. National Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad through General Attorney" and "Muhammad Amir and others v. Mst. Beevi and others" reported as 2005 CLD 875 and 2007 SCMR 614 respectively.

6. It reveals from the record that the petitioner-plaintiff Mst. Azim Khatoon filed the instant suit but she did not appear in support of her version that Mst. Kundan Mai professed Shia sect. On the other hand, the husband of the petitioner Ali Muhammad prosecuted the case on behalf of Mst. Azim Khatoon who during cross-examination admitted that he belongs to Sunni sect. All the grounds raised in the instant civil revision were earlier agitated before both the learned courts below who after detailed scrutiny have observed that the suit is without any merit and accordingly dismissed the suit as well as the appeal of the petitioner. Prior to the civil litigation, the matter was heard and adjudicated by the Revenue hierarchy who also gave their verdict against the petitioner.

7. The mutation of inheritance of petitioner's other family members shows that Mst. Kundan Mai had been professing Sunni Sect. The law relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also failed to point out any illegality, infirmity on jurisdictional error in the impugned judgments. In the circumstances, no interference is called for.

8. The outcome of the above discussion is that the civil revision in hand has no merit, hence dismissed in limine. KMZ/A-146/L Petition dismissed.