P L D 1965 W (PLP)

Proceedings in inquiry to be held in a summary manner and not as a civil Court‑Adjourned from time to time for producing evidence by parties as to whether deceased was a Shiah Witnesses not heard one by one, or cross‑examined, but in a summary manner‑Proceedings not irregular‑No question of deciding a complicated question of fact, of necessity of proceeding as a civil Court. Saeed Hasan for Petitioners. Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondent. This is a revision filed against order dated the 31st of January 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Rawalpindi, whereby he accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent. The facts of the case are that one Daulat died issueless. In the first instance, a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Mst. Daulat Bibi respondent and Karam Din son of Wali Muhammad, collateral, in equal shares. Mst. Daulat Bibi went in appeal and the Collector remanded the case. On remand, the revenue officer, after enquiries, held that Daulat deceased was a Shia. The entire property was, therefore, mutated in favour of Mst. Daulat Bibi, his sister. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector who accepted it. The respondent went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner who passed the order mentioned above. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the first instance, he has contended that the mutation proceedings were irregular in the sense that the mutation was not sanctioned in the estate in which it related. I do not see much force in this conten tion because the mutation proceedings were conducted and a final decision given in the neighbourhood of the estate: The ruling cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner namely 1964 P L D W P (Rev.) 95, is not, therefore, applicable to the present case. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is to the effect that the revenue officer took up a complicated question of fact and proceeded as a civil Court. A reference to the original record, however, shows that the revenue officer through out conducted the enquiry in a summary manner. It is true that he adjourned the case on a number of occasions but that was wit" b a view to affording the necessary facilities to the parties to produce such evidence before him as they liked. The witnesses were neither examined one by one nor were they cross‑examined. He heard the witnesses produced by all the interested parties in a summary manner and came to the conclusion that the deceased was a Shiah. I, therefore, do not see any irregularity committed by him. In these' circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.