' This Civil Revision has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 19-6-1991 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Muzaffargarh, whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 15-3-1990 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh.
2. Briefly stated the facts of that are the one Salam ud Din son of Suleman resident of Mauza Garam Bagraun Tehsil 'and Distrcit Sanam, Patiala State, East Punjab, India died issueless over 'there and the petitioners being his direct descendants received his share of property measuring 90 kanals and 6 marlas in Khata No.106 in village Alam Shah Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh vide Mutation No.183. The respondents preferred an appeal against the sanction of this mutation and on remand the said mutation was cancelled and sanctioned in favour of respondents on 21-1-1987 and the appeal tiled against this order was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 19-5-1987 and the petitioners challenged both the orders of Revenue Officers through a suit for declaration praying that the impugned orders pronounced by the Revenue Officers were illegal and inoperative against the interest of petitioners. The suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15-3-1990 and being aggrieved the petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Muzaffargarh on 14-4-1990 which was dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 19-6-1991 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Muzaffargarh. Hence, this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Issues Nos.4 and 5 have been decided by misreading and non-reading of evidence which is a glaring mistake and liable to be interfered by this Court. That the petitioners submitted an application before the learned Appellate Court for summoning the record pertaining to Shajra Nasab of the petitioner' family No,70 Hadbast No.123 from the Central Record Room as entries in Exh.D/1 and D/2 were self-contradictory and in absence of original record, the Court could not reach the proper conclusion. That it was safe to have produced the original record from the Central Record Room as the First Shajra Nasab obtained by the petitioners on 11-12-1985 showed that only four names in the shajra were mentioned therein.
That in Exh. D/1 issued on 17-1-1986 Salam ud Din is shown as grandson of Jonki son of Jhandoo whereas in Exh.D/2 Jhandoo is not the predecessor in interest either of Sideman or of Lalu, and hence was different from the Shajra issued on 11-12-1985. Three shajras issued by the Central Record Room are on the record and each one of them is different from the other one and as such could not be relied upon but the learned trial Colift has taken as true both Exh.D/1 and D/2 as true which is against the law and facts. That evidence produced by petitioners on this issue was .
Confidence-inspiring hence weighty against the maneuvered and fake documents as well as forged one produced by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on "Dada Steels Mills v. R.N.K. Corporation" (1988 M LD 247).
4. On the other hand respondents Nos.1 and 2 could not be served through ordinary manner and consequently citation was issued on 18-12-2004 in the "Daily. Nawa-d-Waqt", Multan to procure their attendance but they did not turn up and hence, were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16\-2-2005.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and carefully perused the record. Petitioners being legal heirs and successors in interest of Salam Din deceased on whose demise the mutation of Inheritance No.183 dated 15-2-1986 was attested in their favour and who had been owners in possession of the suit property since then, filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction contending therein that they were the owners of suit-land and order of the Revenue Officer dated, 21:-,1-1987 regarding attestation of Mutation No.183 in favour of respondents, order of A.C./Collector dated 13-10-1986 remanding the case and 'the order dated 19-5-1987 dismissing the petitioner's appeal were illegal, void, based on fraud hence ineffective and inoperative qua their rights and that respondent No.1/defendant had no concern or any connection with Salam Din deceased.
6. Niaz Muhammad while appearing as P.W.-1 deposed that he was refugee migrated from India and knew the parties, whose father's name. Was Lelo and Barkat was father of Lelo and son of Nizam. That Salm ud Din deceased was son of Suleman. Suleman and Nizam were brothers. During cross-examination he deposed that disputed land situated in Mouza Easan Mehar measuring 27 beghas and Nizam and Suleman were brothers and Jonki was their father P.W.2 Nizam, Din also well corroborated the statement of P.W.-1 During his cross-examination he stated that he had no relationship with the plaintiffs. He further deposed Berkat was father of Lelo. P.W.3 Khurshid Ahmad one of the plaintiffs also 'corroborated the statements of other P.Ws. Exh.P.1 is copy of mutation in dispute No.183 which shows that said mutation was attested in favour of legal heirs of deceased i.e. Widow Mst. Zainab to the extent of 1/4th share and in favour of the plaintiffs to the extent of 3/4th share and Mst. Zainab and plaintiffs were in possession of the land situated in Khata No.105 and the disputed land was situated in Khata No.106. On the other hand D. W.1 Shah Muhammad stated that he knew Salam ud Din son of Suleman who had died. Jonki was father of Suleman and Jindo was father of Jonki. Jonki has another brother namely Shera who was father of Kutbi who had a son namely Jamal ud Din alias Jali. The defendant Ali Nawaz was son of Jamal ud Din alias Jali and Salam ud Din was issuless. That plaintiffs were not related to Salam ud Din and they were of a separate family. D.W.2 Meher Din also corroborated the statement of D.W.1 and narrated that All Nawaz linked him with Salam ud Din. D.W.3 also corroborated the same statement as P.W.1.
7. Petitioners submitted an application before the learned Appellate Court for summoning the record pertaining to Shajra Nasab of the petitioners' family No.70, Hadbast No.123 from the Central Record Room as entries in Exhs.D.1 and D.2 were self-contradictory and in absence of the original record the Court could. Not reach to a just conclusion. The First Shjra Nasab obtained by the petitioners on 11-12-1985 shows that only four names in the Shajra were mentioned in Exh.D.1 issued on 17-1-1986 Salam ud Din is shown as grandson of Jonki son of Jhandoo whereas in Exh.D.2 Jhandoo is not the predecessor in interest either of Suleman or of Lalu and hence is different from the shajra issued on 11-12-1985. Presently three shajras 'issued by the Central Record Room are on the record and each one of them is different from other one and Exhs.D.1 and D.2 are against the law. Evidence produced by petitioners was confidence-inspiring in this respect and weighty against the alleged manoeuvered and fake document. Leatned Appellate Court did not show any interest to summon the requisite original record from the Central Record Room or even for that matter to have requisitioned from the Central Record Room. For one family no separate shajras can be issued by the Central Record Room and if having been issued they are not correct and genuine.
8. For what has been discussed above it can safely be held that the First Appellate Court did not act in proper exercise of his jurisdiction in declining to grant application for production of additional evidence and also acted in haste in rejecting the same so, instant Civil Revision is accepted, the impugned judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate Court for decision afresh on merits, after giving opportunity of evidence and hearing to both the parties. No order as to costs.