' MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR ARSHAD, J.---The petitioner calls in question the judgment dated 29-9-2001 passed by Civil Judge, Bahawalnagar/ respondent No.13 whereby, application filed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 under section 12(2), C.P.C. Was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 17-2-1987 was set aside and the question of inheritance of suit-land was declared open amongst all the legal heirs of the deceased Sultan, predecessor of the parties; and also the order dated 5-3-2002 passed by learned Additional District Judge/respondent No.12, dismissing petitioner's revision against the above-said order of respondent No.13.
2. The facts, in brief are that Haji Muhammad Sultan predecessor of the parties, was owner of land measuring 425 Kanals and 2 Marlas situated in Mouza Kishangarh Tehsil and District Bahawalnagar. The petitioner and respondents Nos.4 to 11 filed a suit for declaration on 10-1-198.7 claiming that they had become owners of the suit property through oral gift made by said Sultan in their favour. It was further stated by the petitioner and others that said Sultan who was literate person and was acting as a Clerk of an Advocate at District Headquarters, Bahawalnagar appeared in the said suit in person on 17-2-1987 and got recorded his consenting statement before the Court under his signatures on the order sheet and in view of his. Said statement, the suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 11, as prayed for. It is further submitted that on the basis of said decree mutation was also sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 11. Sultan remained alive till 1995 and he never challenged either the said decree or the mutation, with the result that petitioner had been enjoying the suit-land as exclusive owner in possession. The controversy however, arose on the death of Sultan when respondents Nos.1 and 2 filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. On 24-5-1995 seeking setting aside of the decree on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. The said petition was contested by the petitioner and respondents Nos.3 to 11 by filing written reply on 23-7-1995 and keeping in view the divergent stands of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- ' Issues:--
(1) Whether there are sufficient reasons for setting aside decree dated 17-2-1987? OPP.
(2) Whether the petitioners have no cause of action and locus standi to file this application? OPR
(3) Whether the application is time-barred? OPR
(4) Whether the petitioners have filed this application just to harass the respondents and respondents are entitled to special costs under section 35-A of C.P.C.? OPR
(5) Relief.
On the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court accepted the said application on 29-9-2001 with the following directions:-- "Keeping in view what has been discussed above, this petition is accepted. Resultantly, the question of inheritance of the suit-land has become open amongst all the legal heirs of the deceased Sultan. Both the petitioners are entitled to get their share from the suit-land as per law, necessary entries in the Revenue Record may also be incorporated. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
' Against the above order dated 29-9-2001, a revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge/respondent No.12 in the following terms:-- "Perusal of the record shows that this revision petition is not properly documented. Attested copies of the plaint, written statement issues, evidence and the judgment and decree dated 17-2-1987 have not been submitted along with this revision petition. Without perusing these documents proper adjudication of the case is not possible.
' For what has been discussed above, the instant revision petition merits dismissal. It is disposed of accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs."
3. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned revisional Court/respondent No.12 acted illegally and with material irregularity by dismissing revision of the petitioner on a technical ground and without recording any findings on merits of the case arising out of issues framed and decided by the trial Court. By placing reliance on the case "Riasat Ali v.
Muhammad Jaffar Khan and 2 others" 1991 SCM R 496, learned counsel argues that revisional Court had no jurisdiction to dismiss the revision petition of the petitioner straightaway without affording opportunity of furnishing certified copy of the requisite documents or the Court may itself requisition the record of the trial Court, especially when the matter stood finally decided and the revision was not against the interim order in a pending matter.
4. On the other hand, le.Arned counsel for the respondents contested this petition on the ground that provisions of section 115, C.P.C. Requiring all the documents to be filed along with revision petition is a mandatory, requirement, hence, the revision petition of the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge/respondent No.12.
5. I have considered the above mentioned arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the cited judgments.
6. There is no cavil to the proposition that petitioner is required to furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and order of the subordinate Courts in terms of section 115, C.P.C. But the same is equally correct that said provisions are directory and not mandatory, meaning thereby that before invoking such provisions the revision petitioner must be afforded opportunity either to furnish the said documents or even the revisional Court could itself requisite the record of the trial Court. But there is no third way open for the revisional Court to dismiss the revision petition straightaway for non-furnishing of certified copies at the first instance, especially after entertainment as well as admission of the same for hearing on merits as done by the learned Additional District Judge in the present case.
7. The upshot of above discussion is that this petition is allowed, the order passed by learned Additional District Judge dated 5-3-2002 is declared as not sustainable being not in consonance with the provisions of section 115, C.P.C. As well as law declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cited judgment, as such is set aside and case is sent back to the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar who will decide the same himself, either after affording opportunity to the petitioner of furnishing copies of requisite documents or requisitioning the record of the trial Court, as the case may be. The parties to appear before the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar on 21-11-2005.
Case remended.