MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- On 9-1-1987 Faiz Muhammad respondent No.1 filed a suit against the petitioners and the other respondents. He stated that he is son of Abdullah son of Fattu and he is a co-sharer in the suit-land to the extent of 2/3rd share being the son of said Abdullah. The petitioners fraudulently got Mutation No.678 attested on 30-11-1985 to the exclusion of the said plaintiff. The petitioners in their written statement denied the said allegation and stated that the mutation has been correctly attested. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded.
The learned trial Court decreed the suit on 6-2-1994. A learned. Additional District Judge, Lodhran, dismissed the first appeal of the petitioners on 8-4-1996.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the statement of Faiz Muhammad plaintiff was recorded together in affirmative as well as in rebuttal in violation of law laid down by this Court in the case of Naseer Ahmad v. District Judge, Multan and 4 others PLD 1992 Lah.
92. According to him, the learned Courts below have misread the evidence on record while holding- the respondent No.1 to be the son of Abdullah. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents refers to the case of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through Chairman, Islamabad v. Maqbool Hussain, Reservation and Ticketing Officer, PIA, Lahore 1996 SCM R 622 to urge that no prejudice having been caused to the petitioners, in the said manner of recording statement of his client would not invalidate the impugned judgments which otherwise are supported by the evidence on record.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records. Now whereas the respondent No.1 had categorically stated that he is son of Abdullah son of Fattu. The petitioners had sufficed with a simple denial. Evidence was led by the respondent No.1. Now Faiz Muhammad son of Sharaf Din aged 56 years. P.W. Is a close relative of the parties. He stated that the respondent No.1 is the son of Abdullah son of Fattu and that he was survived by a son and a daughter, namely, Mandan. Khushi Muhammad aged 80 years is P.W.2 who made a similar statement. He is the son of a sister of the said Abdullah son of Fattu. The respondent No.1 appeared as P.W.3. Now as noted above his statement was recorded together in affirmative and rebuttal. Whereas it was not at all suggested to the said two P.Ws. That he is, in fact; on of Abdullah son of Mallo, an earlier husband of Mst.
Hassani but then married Abdullah son of Fattu; the said suggestion was given to he respondent No.1 which was denied.
4. Now D.W.1 is Qutab Din petitioner who introduced the story that, in fact, Faiz Muhammad respondent is son of Abdullah son of Mallo who was the previous husband of Mst. Hassani who later married Abdullah son of Fattu. In his cross-examination, he admitted the respondent and Mst.
Hassani used to live together with Abdullah and he died in their house. He further admitted that all his property was mutated in favour of the respondent No.1 and the said Mst. Hassani. Muhammad Rafi is D.W.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he does not know B whether respondent No.1 is the son of Abdullah son of Fattu. D.W.3 is Nizam Din. He stated that he has heard from his brothers and sisters that respondent No.1 is son of Abdullah son of Mallo.
5. Now Exh.P.1 is a copy of voters list for the year 1979 wherein Faiz Muhammad is recorded to be the son of Abdullah son of Fateh Muhammad while Exh.P.2 is the copy of the same document pertaining to Abdullah son of Fateh Muhammad son of Subhan. It has come in evidence that father of Abdullah was Fateh Muhammad who was common known as Fattu.
6. Having examined the said evidence on record, I do not find any misreading or non-reading thereof by the learned Courts below. So far as the said objection of the learned counsel in the matter of recording of the statement of respondent No.1 is concerned, the same stands fully answered by the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan being relied upon by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The civil revision accordingly is dismissed. No orders as to costs.