1982 PLP 1781 (CLC)

The above order was passed on C. M. A. No. 1502/79 which is an applica tion made by the applicant under Order XLI, rule 27, C. P. C. praying therein that the applicants be allowed to produce the documents mentioned in the said application as additional evidence and to consider the same while disposing of the revision application. The documents sought to be produced are enumerated as follows :‑‑ (1) Certified true copy of Index No. II of lease agreement dated 20th October, 1935 issued on 11th January, 1979 by Sub‑Registrar. (2) Original Dhall bill pertaining to year 1944‑45. (3) Certified true copy of order dated 24th February, 1977 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sukkur Division. (4) Certified true copy of order dated 26th May, 1977 passed by Member Board of Revenue, Sind Hyderabad. (5) Photostat copy of order dated 28th April, 1977 passed by Addi tional Commissioner, Sukkur Division.

3. Pursuant to the above order the revenue record has been brought by the official respondents which includes original Form VI and Form VIII‑A. This Form VIII‑A relates to the years 1940‑41, 1943‑44 and 1946‑47 and Form V1 pertains to the year 1954. In the presence of the advocates for the parties these documents have been perused. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that these documents clearly show that their predecessor Mohammad Ali Juno was the owner of the disputed Survey No. 629/2. The learned counsel for the respondents however contended that the entry in Form VI for the year 1954 in respect of Survey No. 629/2 has been tampered with and according to them their appear to be forgery as to the figure Survey No. "629/2". According to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, that there is fraudulent addition of figures "l to 4", which are shown to be the sub‑divisions of Survey Number

629. If the contention of the learned counsel for rye respondent No. 1 is accepted that there was forgery then question would arise as to what were the actual sub‑divisions of Survey Number 629 which were in the name and belonged to Mohammad Ali Juno. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the same has proceeded on the assumption that since the Survey Number 629/2 was not mentioned in the will" (Exh 67) or in the lease deed Exh. 32, the said disputed survey number did not belong to Haji Mir Mohammad and that forgery was committed in the revenue record of 1954 (Form VI) by adding in the said Ford word.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it has not been proved on record that before 1952‑53 the land belonged to toe Government. In fact no entry has been pointed out in the original record produced today for perusal of the Court to that effect. The learned counsel for the parties have been allowed to go through the original record to point out if the survey number in dispute before 1952‑53 belonged to and vested in the Government.

5. We have already noticed above that the original record had been called for by order passed on 27th November, 1980 by consent of the parties. I am of the opinion that to decide finally whether there was forgery and to determine the question of the ownership of the survey number in dispute prior to and in the )ear 1952‑53 (when the land was granted to respondent No. 1). It was necessary that these questions should have been properly considered and adjudicated upon. The allegation of forgery could not have been decided on mere assumptions, It is well settled principle that such an allegation is to be proved by clear and con vincing evidence as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Curt of Pakistan in the case of Ahsan Ali v. The District Judge PLD1969SC167.

6. In view of the above discussion it becomes necessary that addi tional evidence should be recorded after framing the necessary additional issues to which the counsel for the parties agree. Accordingly the follow ing additional issues are framed by consent of the learned consul for the parties :‑ (1) (i) Whether there was any entry favour of plaintiffs' pre decessor in respect of Survey Number‑629/2, prior to or in 1952‑53 ? (ii) Or, if any fraud or forgery took place, in Form VI or any other Deh Form/ revenue records in respect of, ownership/posse ion of Survey No. 629/2 : If so to what effect . (2) Whether in 1952‑53 or at the time of grant of Surrey No. 629/2 to respondent No. 1, the said survey belonged to and vested in the Government, so as to entitle the concerned authorities to make a valid grant in favour of respondent No. I ?

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the two lower Courts are set aside. The case is remanded to the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge Nawabshah to record additional evidence, as may be produced by the parties. The parties shall be at liberty to apply for amendment of the pleadings, which would of course be decided by the learned trial Court on its own merits. The learned Court shall proceed to dispose of the suit in accordance with law. 8. 1n the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. K.M.A. Petition dismissed.