MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.-Brief facts of the case are that one Muhammad Aslam died on 16-5- 1999 in a road accident. Petitioner No,l was his second wife while petitioner No,2 was his daughter from the said wife and respondent is also his daughter from his earlier wife. On his death, compensation of Rs,2,00,000 was paid by the Government which was received by petitioner No,l from National Bank of Pakistan and got it deposited in her own account in Habib Bank. Respondent feeling dissatisfied and being legal heir claimed her share of Rs,87,500 by way of filing a suit against the petitioners which was contested by the petitioners by pleading that respondent is not daughter of Muhammad Aslam and is thus not entitled to inherit share of compensation. Likewise it was pleaded that the deceased was under debt of Rs,2,00,000 and the amount was paid in discharge of his debt and funeral charges. After recording evidence of the parties, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 28-9-2005 dismissed the suit, which was assailed by respondent through an appeal which stands allowed vide judgment and decree dated 6-6-2006.
This appellate decree is being assailed through the instant civil revision.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that through oral and documentary evidence it is established that the amount received by the petitioners was paid to the creditors of Muhammad Aslam deceased and nothing was left for its distribution among the legal heirs. It is further submitted that the learned appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have opposed the contention and support the appellate judgment and decree.
4. I have considered arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. In para. 2 of the preliminary objections of the written statement, petitioners have denied relationship of the respondent with the deceased Muhammad Aslam which clearly depicts their mala fide and intention to usurp the compensation amount as petitioner No,l during her statement had to admit the relationship of the respondent with deceased Muhammad Aslam. It has not been clearly pleaded in the written statement as to who were the creditors of deceased Muhammad Aslam. General mentioning of creditors is not sufficient so as to leave it open for producing witnesses of their own choice. Likewise receipts Exh.Dl, Exh.D2 and Exh. D3 dated 1-6-1999, 2-6-1999 and 6-1999 in the same handwriting appears to be forged documents. Learned appellate has thoroughly examined the entire evidence on record. No case for interference is made out. This petition is accordingly dismissed.