2007 PLP 1885 (MLD)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

Respondent No.1 brought a suit or the possession qua the Property bearing No.B-VI-S-4-67, situated at Railway Road, Nankana Sahib, on the premises that he is the owner of the property, which was the evacuee and has been transferred to him the suit was inter alia contested by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, who claimed that the said property was purchased by him through a registered sale-deed, dated 10-11-1976 from one Rehmat Ali and thus he is the owner in possession of the said property; relevant issues were framed parties were put to-trial and the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and .decree, dated 2-5-2002, allowed the suit, against which, the petitioners filed an appeal and during the pendency thereof, moved an application for the production of the additional evidence, for bringing on record three documents such as firstly, the statement made by Nazir Ahmed. respondent No. 1, in an earlier suit filed by Nisar Ahmed, the petitioners' predecessor against him in which he has conceded that he has no connection with the Property bearing No. B-VII-S-1-35; secondly the Transfer Order No.91152, dated 23-2-1974, and thirdly, the judgment to the Civil Judge Nankana Sahib, in a suit titled Muhammad Saeed, and others v. Nisar Ahmed, and others dated 2-5-2002; the learned A.D.J., vide order, dated 13-2-2007, has dismissed the application; hence this revision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to convince me, if the statement of Nazir Ahmed, respondent No.1, in an earlier suit, which pertains to a different property number and the Transfer Order, dated 23-2-1974, which even does not mention any property, are relevant for resolving .the dispute of ownership with regard to the property involved in the present suit; however, as far as the judgment of the Civil Judge, dated 2-5-2002, is concerned, it is a part of the judicial record, which has come into existence, after passing of the judgment and decree of the trial Court, and in the judgment, there is a reference to the property in question, which was .declared by the Court to have been purchased by the petitioners' predecessor from one Rehmat Ali, thus, the document becomes relevant and therefore, should have been permitted by the Court. But whether the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, dated 2-5-2002, is binding upon the respondent/plaintiff, who was not party to that lis and whether the petitioners' predecessor has purchased the Property bearing No. B-VI-S-4-67, validly from Rehmat Ali, who had the title to sell the property, would be the questions to be resolved by the Court. In the light of above, this revision is partly allowed to the extent of permitting the petitioners to place on the record the copy of the judgment and decree, dated 2-5-2002 of the learned Civil Judge, passed in a suit titled Muhammad Saeed and others v. Nisar Ahmed as additional evidence and to this extent, the impugned order is set aside, whereas for the remaining, the petition is dismissed however, if the respondent wants to give any evidence in rebuttal, he should also be give the opportunity by the appellate Court. H.B.T./S-101/L Order accordingly.