2011 PLP 285 (MLD)

CH. SHAHID SAEED, J.

The instant civil revision is directed against the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below by way of which suit for declaration filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 was decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 28-9-1994. Petitioners preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the learned appellate Court on 11-3-1997. Hence this civil revision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that one Raif-ud-Din died issueless. He had three brothers namely Muhammad Ajmal, Wali Muhammad and Shuja-ud-Din and one sister Mst. Tajan Begum. Two of his legal heirs namely Muhammad Ajmal and Mst. Tajan Begum filed a suit for declaration alleging therein that they along with other legal heirs are entitled to inherit the property left by Rafi-ud-Din deceased according to their legal shares.

3. The petitioners contested the suit tooth and nail while submitting their written statement. At evidence stage both the parties agreed that Haji Muhammad Ramzan son of Bashir-ud-Din be appointed referee. Therefore, with the consent of both the parties he was appointed as referee. Referee submitted his report on 13-6-1994 and the suit was decreed on the basis of that report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below are against law and facts and also not sustainable in the eyes of law. The main stress of learned counsel for the petitioners was that the referee cannot take any assistance from any corner while preparing the report because the same should had to be prepared by the referee with his own knowledge but in the instant case the referee shared his knowledge and also took the assistance from the other persons.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon 2002 MLD 1175 has supported the judgments and decrees passed by the courts.

6. Arguments heard. Record perused.

7. Undeniably, referee was appointed with the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties. No doubt, Referee though had to decide the matter according to his personal knowledge, but his act of acquiring further information would not vitiate his decision. Nothing would be wrong if referee in order to supplement or argument his knowledge had chosen to affirm or re-affirm same through other sources. Admittedly both the parties are legal heirs of deceased Rafi-ud-Din who died issueless and all the legal heirs were entitled to get their share according to law. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the referee cannot take any assistance from any corner while preparing the report has no force and the same is repelled. Further-more, there is concurrent findings of facts in the matter and the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees took a count of every bit of evidence placed before them and were not shown to have been over looked any part of the record from their judicious consideration. Findings .of the lower courts on question of facts and law based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led in the suit were not susceptible to review to be upset or substituted in revisional jurisdiction. The findings of the courts below based on material on record would not be amenable to interfere with in revisional jurisdiction.

8. Resultantly, this revision petition having no force is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M-648/L Petition dismissed.