2003 PLP 627 (SCMR)

(On Appeal from .the judgment, dated 3‑10‑2001 in Civil Revision No. 1796 of 1993 and 22‑10‑2001 in Review Petition No. 64/C of 2001 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore). ‑‑‑‑O.XLI, R.27‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑ Additional evidence‑‑‑Relationship of parties‑‑‑Proof‑‑‑Unattested copy of form of national identity card‑‑‑Application for additional evidence was dismissed by Appellate Court on the ground that the entries on the form of national identity card had been mutilated and certain matters were not clear‑‑‑Order of Appellate Court was maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Copy of the form produced in evidence was not certified copy issued by the concerned Department but was a document produced by the petitioners from their own possession, therefore, such document could not be allowed to be produced in evidence which had no authenticity‑‑‑Findings of facts recorded by all the Courts below against the petitioners regarding relationship did not suffer from misreading or non‑reading of any material piece of evidence‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Date of rearing: 27th March, 2002. MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.‑This petition is directed against the judgment dated 3‑10‑2001 of the Lahore High Court through which revision petition filed by the petitioners to challenge concurrent findings of facts of the two Courts below has been dismissed.

2. The dispute relates to inheritance of Meharban son of Imam Din. He died in the riots. during partition of the sub‑continent. He had land in India in respect of which claim was filed by Mst. Jainan deceased predecessor‑in‑interest of the present petitioners who was his paternal aunt. It was verified against which the land in dispute was mutated in favour of Mst. Jainan through Mutation No.74 dated 17‑1‑1957 from entries of which it appears that she was shown to be widow of Meharban. Suleman and Mst. Bashiran Bibi respondents filed civil suit to the year 1976 for declaration that they being son and widow of Meharban were entitled to inherit his, property as such the said mutation sanctioned in favour of Mst. Jainan as paternal aunt was ineffective against their rights. Evidence was led by both the parties.

3. The trial Court after considering the evidence elaborately through judge of dated 31‑7‑1993 decreed the suit of the respondents. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the First Appellate Court through judgment dated 14‑11‑1993 against which revision petition filed by them has also been dismissed through judgment dated 3‑10‑2001 impugned in this petition. A review petition filed by the petitioners was also dismissed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the High Court on 22‑10‑2001. In this petition, the legality of the said order has also been sought to be challenged.

4. Before the First Appellant Court, the petitioners filed an Application under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. for permission to produce additional evidence in the form of copy of the national identification form of Mst. Bashiran, Muhammad Ramzan and Abdul Ghafoor which was dismissed on the ground that entries on the said form had been mutilated and certain matters were not clear. It was not certified copy of the said form issued by the concerned department but was a document produced by the petitioners from their own possession, therefore, such a document could not be allowed to be produced in evidence which had no authenticity.

5. The findings of facts recorded by all the Courts below against the petitioners that Suleman was son of Meharban and Mst. Bashiran his widow, have not been shown to have suffered from misreading or non -reading of any material piece of evidence, therefore, this petition has no merits which, is accordingly dismissed and leave refused. Q. M. H./S‑200/S Petition dismissed.