P L D 1966 W (PLP)

(1) Fazal Din v. Mst. Bassi (Revision No. 862). (2) Fazal Din v. Mst. Bassi (Revision No. 874). These two revisions have been filed against order dated the 1st of March 1965, passed by Additional Commissioner, Multan, whereby he accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent and rejected that filed by Fazal Din son of Hoshnaki. The facts of the case are that Mutation No. 95 was entered at the instance of Fazal Din son of Faqir Muhammad petitioner on the basis of an alleged unregistered will on 14‑10‑1962, but was rejected by the Assistant Collector on 17‑10‑1962. On 14‑10‑1962, another mutation bearing No. 91 had been entered in favour of Mst. Bassi and was sanctioned on 18‑10‑1962. Fazal Din son of Faqir Muhammad filed two appeals before the Collector‑one against the sanctioning of Mutation No. 91 and the other against rejection of Mutation No.

95. The Collector accepted the appeals and remanded the case for fresh decision on the ground that no opportunity had been given to Fazal Din son of Faqir Muhammad to prove the will. Mst. Bassi filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Multan, against the remand order. At this stage, an appeal was also filed by Fazal Din son of Hoshnaki in which Fazal Din son of Faqir Muhammad and Mst. Bassi were cited as respondents. The learned Additional Commissioner rejected the appeal of Fazal Din son of Hoshnaki, but accepted that of Mst. Bassi. Hence these two revisions. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. So far as Fazal Din son of Hoshnaki is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a Shajra Nasab given by the Central Record Office. An examination of this document shows that Fazal Din son of Hoshnaki is not at all connected with Khushi Muhammad whose property is involved in this case. I also find that Fazal Din son of Hoshnaki filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner although he was not a party to the previous litigation. It is doubtful whether such an appeal was entertainable. At any rate, he has not been able to connect himself with 'Khushi Muhammad and has no locus standi to come in revision against the sanctioning of Mutation No.

91. So far as Fazal Din son of Faqir Muhammad is concerned, the learned counsel raised an objection that the mutation was sanctioned in another chak. I find that the property was situated in Chak No. 47/12‑L. The distance between the two Chaks is about half a mile and both the Chaks are in the circle of the same Patwari. There has, therefore, been no irregularity committed at all. The other grievance of the learned counsel of the petitioners is that Fazal Muhammad son of Faqir Muhammad was not given any opportunity of proving the will. The mutation was entered at his instance on 14‑10‑1962 and he was present when it was rejected by the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade. Before me, Fazal Din son of Faqir Muhammad has taken up the position that he was not present at the time the mutation was rejected. I am afraid I cannot accept this assertion, because the mutation clearly and definitely mentioned his presence. If he appeared before the Assistant Collector, he could have taken the alleged will with him. There was no justification for claiming any further time in these circumstances. I, therefore, see no justification for interfering with the orders passed by the learned Additional Commissioner. Both the revisions fail and are dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revisions dismissed.