1991 PLP 706 (CLC)

(b) Qanun‑e‑Shahadat (10 of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Art. 64 ‑‑‑ Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXLI, R.25 & S.115 ‑‑‑ Remand of case not warranted after ten years of filing of revision ‑‑‑ High Court itself examined evidence of defendants, where Appellate Court bad failed to examine such evidence ‑‑‑ Evidence of witnesses with regard to point in question was not relevant ‑‑‑ Witnesses having no means of special knowledge, their evidence could not be believed ‑‑‑ No illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in judgment of Appellate Court was pointed out‑..‑Revision was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Iqbal Sargana for Petitioners. Sheikh Afzal Ahmad Qureshi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 26th January, 1991. Rahim‑ud‑Din, deceased, was the owner of the suit property through P.T.D. issued in his favour, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Jhang, in the year 1972. He died in the year 1978. On 13‑7‑1979 Imam Din, respondent No.1 claiming himself as heir/son of Rahim‑ud‑Din riled a suit for the partition of the suit property against Muhammad Yunus, Mst. Balquis, Mst. Wabida and Mst. Saeeda, respondents Muhammad Rafiq and Abdus Salam, were added as defendants vide amended plaint dated 19‑11‑1979. The suit was resisted. Muhammad Rafiq and Abdus Salam conceded the claim of Imam Din, respondent

However, Muhammad Yunus and others, the remaining defendants/ petitioners' plea was that Imam Din was not son of Rahim‑ud‑Din. The issues were framed. Imam Din, plaintiff, produced three witnesses namely Muhammad Ismail, PW1, Shahzada Haji, PW 2, and Shaukat PW3, he himself appeared as PW

4. To rcbut this evidence the petitioner, produced three witnesses namely Nasir‑ud‑Din DW1, Yusuf DW.2 and Rahmat Ali DW3, Yunus, one of the defendants petitioner appeared as DW

4. They tendered in evidence

Ex.DI, photostat copy PTD, Ex. D2, Copy of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 4‑11‑1966 Ex.D

3. Order dated 6‑2‑1979 DSC, Ex.D4 and copy of Deputy Commissioner/Collector Ex.135. In view of its findings that the plaintiff was not the legal heir of Rahim‑ud‑Din, deceased, so be had no cause of action, The trial Court dismissed the suit on 26‑4‑1982. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Imam Din, Filed appeal which was entrusted to learned District Judge, Jhang, who accepting the same setting aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court and remanded the case for decision on merits in accordance with law. Hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Appellate Court suffers from misreading of the evidence of the plaintiff and non -reading of the evidence of the petitioners/defendants.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not feel inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Court in exercise of the revisional power of this Court for the reasons that the learned District Judge was quite competent to believe the evidence of the plaintiff which was disbelieved by the trial Court. He has given reasons for believing the evidence of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading of the evidence produced by the plaintiffs by the learned Appellate Court. No doubt the evidence of the petitioners/defendants has not been discussed by the learned Addl. District Judge, yet I do not desire to remand the case for this purpose inasmuch as the suit was filed in the year 1979; the appeal against the judgment/decree of the trial Court was accepted in the year 1983, and the present revision was riled on 12‑3‑1983. Since the remand of the case after 10 years of the riling of the revision does not seem to be proper, therefore, I have examined the' evidence of the petitioners/defendants myself. I rind that the evidence of these witnesses with regard to the relationship of Imam Din, respondent/plaintiff with Rahim‑ud‑Din, predecessor‑in‑interest, is not relevant under Article 64 of the 'Qanun‑e‑Shahadat; Neither the witnesses except Muhammad Yunus are closely related to Rahim‑ud‑Din nor had they any special means of knowledge of the relationship if Imam Din with the Rahim‑ud‑Din. In cross‑examination they have expressed ignorance about the other relatives of Rahim‑ud‑Din. Muhammad Younus is an interested witness so no useful purpose would be served by making the case a shuttle‑cock. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court.

4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A‑A./M‑2600/L Revision dismissed.