P L D 1953 Azad J (PLP)

ABDUL MAJID, C. J.‑This Is an application for review of judgment. The judgment sought to be reviewed is a judgment passed on the 7th March 1951 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the judgment of the District Judge in the High Court. The appeal was a second appeal and the judgment was passed by me. The, petitioner Raja Bahadur Khan obtained a money decree against the respondent from the Court of Sub‑Judge, Muzaffarabad on 14th Asuaj, 1993 during the Dogra Regime. An application for the execution of that decree was filed in the Court of Sub Judge of Azad Kashmir at Muzaffarabad on 28th August 1948. This application was resisted on the ground that it was time‑barred. It was also urged that the decree‑holder had transferred the decree of which the execution was sought to one Thaker Das in lieu of the debt due from him and that the res pondent had paid the amount of the decree to Thakar Das. The executing Court rejected the pleas of the respondent and proceeded with the execution of the decree. The respondent filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge from the order of the trial Curt. The District Judge held the execution application as time barred. The petitioner filed an appeal in the High Court against the judgment of the District Judge. I dismissed the appeal hold ing that the oral evidence produced by the petitioner in support of the fact that the execution application was filed within three years of the disposal of the previous application was of a shaky and flimsy character. The application now before me sets out that certain docu mentary evidence hay been discovered since, which if entertained would prove that the evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove that its execution application was within time was reliable and could be depended upon. The application for review has been opposed on the ground that it is not competent to this Court to entertain such an application. It is a well established principle of law that the High Court cannot in second appeal entertain an application for a review of judgment based on the ground that since the disposal of the appeal documentary evidence has been discovered which, if sufficiently proved, would have led the Court below to come to a different finding, although had such evidence been discovered A before the disposal of the appeal tile Court might have allowed the appellant to withdraw tae appeal with a view to apply to the lower appellate Court for a review of the judgment on the ground of the discovery of fresh evidence because the High Court seldom interferes with the judgment of the lower appellate Court on a question of fact. I have already mentioned that the second appeal has already been disposed of by this Court. I see no ground o depart from the general principle of law referred to above. It has been argued before me that the matter before this Court is not a question of fact but a question of law. I cannot agree with this. The evidence now produced by the petitioner that the document Exh. A (1) is a certified copy of the order passed by the Court of Dogra Regime and it could not be produced in the executing Court because it remained with Abdul Rahim brother- in‑law of the petitioner who was a munshi of the petitioner before the Liberation Movement started, Is also not very reliable. Abdur Rahim admits that he was not mukhtar of the petitioner in the execution application and fails to explain how he happened to obtain a copy of the order passed in the e:,ecutlodt application. This witness is also unable to say how he preserved this copy of order during three years he was away from Muzaffarabad. Abdul Waheed A. W. (2) sa3s that the copy Exh. A‑1 was prepared by him when he was working in the Court of Sub‑Judge, Muzaffarabad but he gives no reason why this copy was not prepared by Tara Chand Kaul and Pandit Lasa Kaul who worked as copyists in the Sub‑Judge's Court at Muzaffarabad when the document in dispute was prepared. The petitioner himself as a witness says that he knew that the copy of the order Exh. A‑1 was with Abdur Rahim but did not care to have it produced in the lower Court because the whereabouts of Abdur Rahim were not known to him. This statement is false on the face of it. How one can believe that the petitioner did not know the whereabouts of Abdur Rahim who is his brother‑in‑law. I am convinced that the document Exh. A‑1 on which the petitioner now relies was in his possession and he did not produce it in the trial Court either because it was a forged document or he considered that it did not benefit him. Anyhow, following the general principle of law to which I have referred above, I hold that this application for review is not entertainable and I dismiss it with costs. Pleader's fee shall be Rs.

15. Announced. A.H. Application dismissed.