2007 PLP 3137 (YLR)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

The respondent brought a suit for -the possession and rendition of accounts against the petitioners claiming to be the owner of the petrol pump in question; the petitioners denied that the respondent has ,any title thereto and also refuted that Razia Shaheen Malik, her predecessor, with whom she claims to have exchanged the suit property was the owner, or that Malik Nazis Ahmed or Shafique Shahid, are the husband and son of Razia Shaheen Malik. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues No.1 and 2 were framed; the respondent/plaintiff is stated to have completed .her evidence, when on the first available opportunity the petitioners moved an application under Order XVI. Rule I C.P.C., to summon the official witness from the Social Security office, to establish that Shafique Shahid had no relations with Razia, Shaheen Malik, as the name of his mother is Hameeda Begum and the father's name recorded therein as Latif; besides, the petitioners also sought to summon some bank official of the Habib Bank Limited, regarding the accounts of 'the petrol pump maintained in the said bank. The application has been rejected by the learned Trial Court; the revision of the petitioners also stands dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that .the learned Courts below have failed to exercise their proper jurisdiction, while dismissing the application of the petitioners for summoning the witnesses.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and I do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that any case within the purview of Order XVI, Rule 1 C.P.C. has been made out, when no cause has been shown by the petitioners not to have mentioned the names of these witnesses in the list of witnesses to be filed within 7 days, of the framing of the issues, besides, the record which the petitioners want to .summon through the witnesses is neither sued upon nor relied upon.

4. The argument of Mian Asrar ul Haq learned counsel for the petitioners, that Shafique Shahid, the alleged son of Razia Malik Shaheen, in collusion with Malik Nazir Ahmed, her husband, have procured a collusive and fraudulent decree, on the basis of which Shafique Shahid asserts to be the son of the lady and thus may not claim aright in the suit property on that basis. I am afraid, that the above apprehension is unfounded, for the reason that any declaratory decree procured by one about his legal character or right to the property is only binding inter se the parties to that case, and shall have no binding effect on the others. If the petitioners arc not party in that matter, obviously in such circumstances, the respondent, has to prove firstly that Razia Shaheen Malik was the owner of the property, and that she -was survived by Shafique Shahid and Malik Nazir' Ahmed, as her legal heirs. With the above observations, this revision petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./N-51/L Revision dismissed.