2002 PLP 1355 (SCMR)

QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑Through this petition one Rehmat Khan has sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 17‑2‑1999 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.4003 of 1994.

2. The relevant facts are that inheritance mutation of one Cheetar Khan was attested on 9‑6‑1983 in favour of petitioner Rehmat Khan and Mst. Mauj Bibi widow of Cheetar Khan to the extent of 3/4 share and 1/4 share respectively. Mst. Mauj Bibi had filed an appeal against the said mutation which was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner/Assistant Collector, Kasur on 25‑12‑1984 but her review petition was accepted on 23‑4‑1985. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner who accepted the same on 2‑11‑1986 but the revision petition filed by Mst. Mauj Bibi was allowed by the Board of Revenue on 22‑1‑1990 and the case was remanded to the Assistant Collector Grade‑II for a fresh decision. The Assistant Collector Grade‑II, vide his order dated 28‑3‑1990, directed the Tehsildar to review the said Mutation No. 1179 dated 9‑6‑1983. As a result thereof the entire estate of Cheetar Khan fell to the lot of Mst. Mauj Bibi vide Mutation No. 1826 dated 5‑8‑1990. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed a suit claiming 3/4 share out of the inheritance of Cheetar Khan. After a hot contest the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 24‑5‑1994 but the appeal preferred by Mst. Mauj Bibi was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge, Kasur on 7‑12‑1994 and the suit was dismissed. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the High Court, as stated above.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel . appearing for the caveators we have come to the inescapable conclusion that the claim of the petitioner has not been established on record and the impugned judgment does not warrant interference. The evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove that he was a collateral of Cheetar Khan is too deficient to establish his alleged relationship with Cheetar Khan. Both the witnesses Nabi Khan (P. W.1) and Ismail (P. W.2) examined by the petitioner are strangers and while the former had taken up residence in the village where the disputed land is situated about two years ago the latter's village is situated at a distance of 10/15 miles from the petitioner's village. The petitioner has not examined any person having special knowledge with regard to his relationship with Cheetar Khan. The pedigree‑table pressed into service by him neither links him in any manner with Cheetar Khan nor it has been proved in accordance with law.

4. Before parting with the judgment it is necessary ‑to mention that at the initial stage interim relief was granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that during pendency of the petition he shall not withhold the share of the respondent out of the produce of the suit land. In that context Criminal Original No. 13 of 1999 was filed by Mst. Mauj Bibi with the allegation that the petitioner had violated the direction and thus committed contempt of the Court. When that petition came up for hearing the learned counsel for Mst. Mauj Bibi submitted that he would not press the same. For the foregoing reasons the petition is dismissed and leave declined. Criminal Original No. 13 of 1999 is also dismissed as not pressed. S.A.K./R‑42/S Leave refused