' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.--This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 29- 6-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura whereby appeal brought by petitioners against the judgment and decree, dated 11-2-2004 passed by learned Civil Judge, Sheikhupura was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts for the disposal of this revision are that Sultan Ahmad (predecessor-in-interest of petitioners) filed suit for declaration etc. And stated that he was owner of suit-land (measuring 70 kanals and 19 marlas Khewat No,79, Khatuni Nos.350 and 351 situated in Chak No,25/RB District Sheikhupura) and that Mutation No,553 dated 1-11-1997, General Power of Attorney No,952, dated 2- 8-1997 and Mutation No,493, dated 3-12-1997 are illegal, void and ineffective qua his rights. He further stated that one Muhammad Ayub Bhatti obtained his thumb-impression on different papers on the pretext of obtaining proprietary rights for him but later on he (plaintiff-Sultan Ahmad) came to know that general power of attorney had been executed in favour of respondent No,2 (Abdul Majeed) and Exchange Mutations No,553, dated 1-11-1997 and No,498, dated 3-12-1997 had been sanctioned. The plaintiff averred that he had never exchanged suit-land and he never appointed defendant No,2 as general attorney and that said documents were prepared on the pretext of obtaining proprietary rights regarding suit-land. He was in possession of suit-land and he had never delivered possession to defendant No,l. Sultan Ahmad died during pendency of case, therefore, present petitioners were brought on record as his legal heirs. The respondent/defendants mentioned in written statement that plaintiff had appointed defendant No,2 as his general attorney and thereafter exchange mutations were sanctioned and the same are not based on. Fraud. Learned trial Court framed issues, recorded evidence and dismissed the suit brought by petitioners vide judgment, dated 11-2-2004. The petitioner filed appeal there against which was dismissed vide judgment, dated 29-6-2004 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sheikhupura. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
4. As mentioned above petitioners had filed suit for declaration etc. Against the respondents, which was dismissed by learned trial court. The case of petitioners is that Sultan Ahmad (predecessor- ininterest of petitioners) was owner of suit-land and that he had never appointed Abdul Majeed, respondent No,2 as his general attorney hence Exchange Mutations Nos.553 and 498 sanctioned at the instance of Abdul Majeed are liable to be set aside. The case of respondents is that Sultan Ahmad had appointed Abdul Majeed as his general attorney, therefore, exchange mutations sanctioned in favour of respondent No,1 and Sultan Ahmad are valid documents. According to para. No,5 of the plaint documents in question were prepared through fraud. However, the petitioners have failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of their case. The petitioners examined Muhammad Sharif as P.W.1. He is general attorney of Mst. Surriaya Bibi, petitioner. He (P .W.1) stated that he was general attorney of Sultan Ahmad. He further stated that Muhammad Ayub Bhatti obtained thumb-impressions of Sultan Ahmad on different papers and thereafter prepared power of attorney through fraud and then got attested exchange mutations. During cross- examination P. W.1 stated that he did not know if Sultan Ahmad had appointed Abdul Majeed as his general attorney. So it is clear that he has not denied the execution of general power of attorney in favour of Abdul Majeed, respondent No,2. It was for the petitioner to prove their case but there is no evidence to show that general power of attorney, dated 2-8-1997 and exchange mutations are based on fraud. As mentioned above they have failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of their case. So learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the suit brought by petitioners.
The judgment, dated 29-6-2004 shows that learned Additional District Judge has decided the appeal brought by petitioners. After appraisal of entire material available on record. Para No,2 of the said judgment reads as under:- ' "The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the General Power of Attorney No,952, dated 2- 8-1997 was based on fraud and misrepresentation and it was liable to rejection. The evidence produced and the record, was perused with the help of the learned counsel for the appellant. At Sr.
No,5 of the plaint it was asserted that impugned documents were got executed through fraud and misrepresentation. It means that execution of the impugned document is admitted. It is asserted that these are ineffective due to the fraud' played by the respondents. Now it was appellant who had to prove where there is nothing on file to prove the fraud. Exh.D-8 is the impugned power of attorney. It was executed by Mr. Sultan Ahmad in favour of Mr. Abdul Majeed, respondent No,2 Exh.D.2 shows that the previous general power of attorney Exh.D.1 executed on 4-12-1995 was cancelled on 2-8-1997. The said general power of attorney was executed by Sultan Ahmed in favour of Dr. Ashfaq Ahmad. After its cancellation vide Exh. D.2 flesh power of attorney Exh. D.8 was executed in favour of respondent No,2 on the same date i.e, 2-8-1997. D.W.3 had identified Mr. Sultan Ahmad, Mr. Abdul Majeed appeard as D.W.2 and declared that he was the general attorney of Mr. Sultan Ahmad and the impugned mutation of exchange was duly executed. This is supported by D.W.1. Exh.D.3 shows that allotment of the suit-land to Mr. Sultana Ahmad, Exh.D.4 to Exh.D.7 show the litigation among Muhammad Ansar and Sultan Ahmad and the respondents. All the suits filed by Muhammad Ansar were dismissed Mr. Muhammad Ansar appeared as P.W.2 and declared that the impugned transaction had not taken place. After failure in civil litigation Mr. Muhammad Ansar is an interested witness who supported the claim of the appellant. P.W.1 Mr. Muhammad Sharif was appointed as general attorney by the preset appellants, Mst. Surriaya vide Exh.D.1 on 8-3-2003. Mst.
Surriaya did not appear in the witness box. P.W.3 is Mr. Akhtar Hussain who is not marginal witness.
The appellant failed to prove that Exh.D.8 was the result of fraud. On the other hand it is the result of natural consequences. Dr. Ashfaq Ahmad was appointed as general attorney on 4-12-1995 through irrevocable general power of attorney dated 4-12-1995 but the same was revoked vide Exh. P.2 on 2-12-1997. It was quite natural that on very date the respondent No,2 was appointed as general attorney through irrevocable general power of attorney. In cross examination P.W.2 declared that Rs,7,50,000 were paid. There is nothing on file to call in question the execution of Exh.D.8.' The learned trial court while recording its finding on issue No,5 held that the impugned power of attorney was duly executed. Any element of fraud is not proved. The issue No,5 was rightly decided against the appellants."
' It is well-reasoned judgment. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no justification to disturb the concurrent findings recorded by learned courts below.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this revision petition has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs."