' JAVED IQBAL, J.--- The above captioned appeals are directed against the judgment, dated 11-10- 1999 whereby a civil revision petition preferred on behalf of Saadullah Khan has been accepted by reversing the judgments/decrees of the Courts below, are being disposed of together since common questions of law and facts are involved.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are "that plaintiff/ respondent Saadullah Khan is the son of Mst. Khana Bibi deceased daughter of Shadi Khan and maternal-nephew of pro forma defendants Nos.4 and 5. Pro forma defendants 4 and 5 sold an area measuring 358 Kanals 19 Marlas vide Mutation No,175 attested on 18-9-1985 allegedly including the share of Mst. Khana Bibi mother of the plaintiff measuring 102 Kanals, 11 Marlas, in favor of defendant No,1., who then further transferred the same vide Mutation No,217 attested on 29-2-1988 in the name of defendants 2 and 3; that Mst.
Khana Bibi during her life had neither authorized pro forma defendants 4 and 5 nor herself had consented in either way for the sale of her share measuring 102 Kanals, 11 Marlas vide the impugned Mutation No,175 out of the suit-land as a result thereof both the mutations being illegal, fraudulent and void were inoperative on the rights of plaintiff, hence are liable to cancellation and that the pro forma defendants had in fact sold their own share measuring 256 Kanals, 8 Marlas through the impugned Mutation No,175, therefore, the rest of the transaction pertaining to the share of Mst.
Khana Bibi deceased mother of the plaintiff measuring 102 Kanals, 11 Marlas being illegal and inoperative to be rectified and reincorporated in the name of plaintiff; in alternative the plaintiff also prayed for possession of the suit-land. The defendants being summoned submitted their written statements and then being duly allowed their amended written statement, thus, hotly contesting the suit on legal as well as factual grounds". The learned trial Court after framing of issues and recording the evidence pro and contra dismissed the suit vide judgment/decree, dated 16-7-1995 which was assailed by way of appeal which met the same fate and dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Dera Ismail Khan, vide judgment/decree dated 23-5-1998. Being dissatisfied, the respondent preferred revision petitions which have been accepted, hence these appeals.
3. Heard Mr. Abdul Aziz Kundi, learned Advocate-on-Record on behalf of appellants and Haji Muhammad Zahir Shah, learned Advocateon-Record for the respondents at length, scanned the entire record with their eminent assistance and perused the judgments of learned trial and appellate Courts as well as the judgment impugned. The moot and pivotal question which needs determination is whether Mst. Khana Bibi (mother of Saadullah Khan) had sold more area to that of her entitlement as is indicative from Mutation No,182 dated 19-12-1985(98 Kanals, 7 Marlas) and Mutation No,212 dated 9-11-1987 (212 Kanals, 14 Marlas) meaning thereby that total 311 Kanals, 1 Marla land was sold by Mst. Khana Bibi. This aspect of the controversy has been specifically asserted in the written statement which has been ignored by the learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court (DJ. Khan) in chambers. We have also observed in the same wake of events that Mutation No,212, dated 9-11-1987 whereby 212 Kanals, 14 Marlas land was sold by Mst. Khana l ibi was got attested on 9-11-1987 whereas Mst. Khana Bibi died on 15-7-1987. How Mutation No,212 dated 9- 11-1987 was got .Attested after her death, is the question which would have a substantial bearing qua the genuineness and authenticity of the above mentioned mutation on the one hand and transaction made through it on the other which also escaped the notice of learned Single Judge of Peshawar High Court. In the above portraited scenario the claim and role of Saadullah who admittedly remained Revenue Officer of the area required a deeper and vigilant scrutiny in the light of entire record and evidence which could not be done by the learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court. Besides that the observations and findings of fact recorded by the learned appellate Court in this regard cannot be discarded without any reasoning which must be given in support of conclusion arrived at by the learned High Court. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum as laid down in Madan Gopal v. Maran Bepari PLD 1969 SC 617; Choori v. Ghulam Hussain 1978 SCMR 404; Muhammad Hussain v. Abbas Khan 1981 SCM R 1233; U. Rai Gyaw Thoo & Co. v. Ma Hla U Pru AIR 1940 Ran.
126.
4. The conduct of pro forma defendants who failed to contest the suit by filing written statement and their statements got recorded by the learned trial Court depicts connivance and collusion with Saadullah Khan being their relative, should also be examined with care and caution. The sole object of pro forma defendants appears to gain maximum monetary benefits enabling them to retain the residue of the sale price to be paid to defendant No,
1. The claim of Saadullah Khan is not to be visualized in isolation but has to be examined in conjunction with the whole mass of evidence on record in which eventually comprehensive spectrum of the picture in its true perspective would be amply exhibited on the screen. In our view unless and until it is decided that how much land was sold by Mst. Khana Bibi, the controversy cannot be set at naught. Besides that it is also to be examined as to whether in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings to shorten litigation and to do complete justice, moulded relief could be granted as has been done by the Courts below, is the question which should be dilated upon by the learned High Court in view of the dictum laid down in case of Arnim Begum v. Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220.
' In sequel to above mentioned discussion the above captioned appeals are accepted. The judgment impugned is set aside with the direction that Revision Petitions bearing Nos.60 and 61 of 1998 shall be treated as pending and decided afresh in accordance with law on merits and in the manner as may be deemed fit and proper after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all concerned without being influenced from the observations made hereinabove preferably within a period of six months.