Syed Deedar Hussain Shah, J.--Leave to appeal is sought against order dated 9.2.2004, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Civil Revision No, 151 of 2002.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioners Zaman Khan etc., filed a suit for declaration that they are owners in possession of the property in dispute as legal heirs of Khuda Yar; that the decision of Member Board of Revenue dated 20.2.1996 is against law and the revenue record and that the legal respondents have no concern with the said property. They further stated in the plaint that deceased Khuda Yar,. who was owner of the disputed land, died leaving behind Mst. Sardaran Mai and the petitioners; that he was issueless and belonging to Fiqa Jafria and Mst.
Sardaran Mai was not entitled to inherit from the estate of the deceased. The learned Trial Court framed necessary issues, recorded evidence of the parties and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 24.9.2001. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, respondents filed appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 7.1.2002. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed a revision, which was dismissed by the learned High Court vide impugned order herein. Hence, this petition.
3. Mr. Jehangir A. Johja, learned ASC for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that learned Additional District Judge has committed legal errors in disbelieving Ex. P-1, which was duly proved by the petitioners before the learned trial Court; and that the impugned order of the learned High Court is the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, leave to appeal may be. granted.
4. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and minutely perused the material available on the file. The record shows that the petitioners miserably failed to prove Ex.
P.1. It is," however, not clear that how PW. 2, who had no concern with the Zakat & Ushr Committee at the time when his statement was recorded, could bring the record containing the original Ex. P.1.
Admittedly, the original record should have been in the custody of concerned Record Keeper, Secretary or the Chairman of the said Committee, who were running the business of the Committee at the relevant time. Apparently, the burden lies upon the petitioners to prove that Ex. P.1 was signed and executed by the deceased Khuda Yar, but they could not discharge the onus of the said issue. The learned lower Appellate Court as well as the learned High Court rightly observed that the stamp vendor was neither summoned nor produced before the learned trial Court, which was the real evidence available with the petitioners.
5. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is legal, unexceptionable, according to the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction, therefore, the same is maintained.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that the present petition is devoid of substance and merits, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined.