2014 PLP 1237 (MLD)

AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.

Through this civil revision, petitioners-plaintiffs have challenged the judgment and decree dated 10-6-2000 passed by learned Addl: District Judge, Lahore, whereby the appeal filed by them was dismissed, and the judgment and decree dated 18-9-1995 passed by learned Civil Judge, Lahore, whereby the suit for declaration filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. The facts of this case are that petitioners-plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration on 16-5-1993 stating therein that they being the sons and daughters of Umar Din, pre-deceased son of Mst. Shakoran Bibi are to inherit Mst. Shakoran Bibi along with defendants Nos.1 to

4. The suit was contested by filing written statement. It was denied that their predecessor, Umar Din, was the son of Mst. Shakoran Bibi. It was pleaded that Umar Din was son of Mst. Bashiran Bibi, who was the second wife of father of the defendants and Umar Din was the son from her previous husband, therefore not entitled to inherit Mst. Shakoran Bibi. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed issues and invited the parties to produce their respective evidence. Both the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their versions. After the close of trial, vide judgment and decree dated 18-9-1995 suit was dismissed by learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate court, which also met with the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 10-6-2000. Hence, this civil revision.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs argues that it being a matter of inheritance both the courts below were bound to liberally interpret the evidence led by the plaintiffs; that the findings recorded by two courts below are against the law, therefore be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiffs be decreed. Learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs further argues that they have filed application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. for permission to produce the documents mentioned therein and if they are not allowed to place the said documents, they will suffer an irreparable loss.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants argues that it is a matter of inheritance for the respondents, the plaintiffs have absolutely no connection whatsoever with Mst. Shakoran Bibi, therefore it is not a matter of inheritance of petitioners, even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by two courts below and even no defect has been pleaded in this civil revision alleging in the findings of learned courts below, as such, no case for interference by this court while exercising revisional jurisdiction has been made out by the petitioners. Further states that with regard to the allotment of property in dispute, the matter went up to the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and the petitioners-plaintiffs never came to the surface as legal heirs of Mst. Shakoran Bibi and when the matter was decided in favour of defendants-respondents, they came forward with this claim. It has been further argued that no close relative was produced to prove the relationship, as claimed by the plaintiffs, all the witnesses are interested and no inhabitant of the area where Mst. Shakoran Bibi was living, has been produced, therefore in accordance with Qanun-e-Shahadat the requirement for proving the relationship has not been proved and even P.W.1 does not know about Mst. Bashiran Bibi. Learned counsel lastly prayed for dismissal of this civil revision.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at full length and also gone through the record minutely with their able assistance.

6. The petitioners-plaintiffs have filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the C.P.C. (C.M. No.525-C-2005) for placing on record the original passport bearing No.068227 prepared on 25-6-1951. They have also filed application (C.M. No.930-C-2006) for permission to produce the following documents:-- (i) Certified copy of affidavit of Shakooran Bibi. (ii) C.H. Form No.168-CH-I-LHR dated 10-8-1959 (in two parts). (iii) Marriage invitation card of cousin of the petitioners. (iv) Affidavit of real aunt (Phophi) of the petitioners along with National I.D. (v) Death certificate of Bashiran Bibi w/o Abdul Majeed and NIC of Muhammad Saeed. (vi) Original Passport No.068227. I have noticed that in the passport at page 2, names of Umar Draz and Yamin have been mentioned, which are clearly visible from the naked eye that these names have been entered subsequently, as all other entries on this page are with other ink except these two names and further when more than 80% of this passport seems to be blemished with any oil, therefore only this entry is not helpful for the plaintiffs, as even the page numbers of this passport are not in order. The other documents are not per se admissible, most of which are private documents, which can be prepared at any time. When these documents were not offered by the plaintiffs in their evidence at trial stage or first appellate stage, therefore at this stage these documents cannot be allowed to be produced as additional evidence. As such, both the above mentioned C.Ms. are dismissed.

7. The oral evidence with regard to proof of relationship of plaintiffs' predecessor Umar Din with Mst. Shakooran Bibi has not been proved. In accordance with Article 64 of Qanun-e-Shahadat to prove the relationship, the witnesses who personally know them have not been produced. These witnesses are not of the area in which Mst. Shakooran was resided. One of the witnesses is maternal uncle of the plaintiffs. The other is also an interested witness. Therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon, even they have not stated up to the mark to prove the relationship. No documentary evidence has been produced. Even in previous round of litigation the matter went up to the august Supreme Court and Mst. Shakooran died during the pendency of that lis and they were never party to these proceedings. Furthermore, there are concurrent findings of facts in the matter and the courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees have considered every bit of evidence, oral as well as documentary, placed before them and nothing is shown to have been overlooked any part of the record from their judicious consideration. The findings of both the courts below on question of facts and law are based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led in the suit, which are not liable to be reviewed or substituted in revisional jurisdiction. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the concurrent findings recorded by two courts below as well as misreading or non-reading of evidence on the part of two courts below. Therefore, no case for interference by this court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. has been made out. Resultantly, this civil revision fails and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. KMZ/M-10/L Revision dismissed.