' KHALIL AHMAD, J.--- Petitioner filed an application on 5-12-1990 for the grant of succession certificate of deceased Nusrat Mehmooda who died on 14-10-1989 stating that deceased was his wife and was employed as SST teacher in Government Girls School Ghakhar. The application was contested by respondents Nos.1 to 5 stating that the petitioner had divorced the deceased and she had made various applications to the President, Air Chief Martial, Prime Minister and Minister for State for Defence. On the pleadings of the parties the Learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the petition is not maintainable in its present form: OPD.
(2) Whether the petitioner has got no locus standi to file this petition? OPR.
(3) Whether the petition is defective in view of preliminary objection No,2 of the written reply? OPR.
(4) Whether the petitioner and the respondents are the heirs of Nusrat Mehmooda Cheema deceased? If so, what are their respective shares? OP parties.
(5) Whether the name of respondent No,1 has been incorrectly described? If so, to what effect? OPR.
(5A) Whether Mst. Surriya Begum respondent No,6 is entitled to recover entire amount of GP fund in exclusion to petitioner and remaining respondents? OPR.
(6) Relief.
2. Parties led their respective evidence. The learned trial Court vide judgment dated 7-7-1993 dismissed the application. Petitioner filed an appeal which too was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 21-7-1993 and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court. The remand order was challenged before this Court by filing Civil Revision No,2199 of 1996 which was accepted by this Court vide order dated 17-1-2003, judgment dated 22- 5-1996 of the learned Additional District Judge remanding the case to the learned trial Court was set aside and the appeal was deemed to be pending before the learned Additional District Judge and was directed to be decided on the basis of available record on the issues already framed.
3. The learned Additional District Judge vide judgment dated 13-3-2004 dismissed the appeal.
Hence this petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that proceedings under the Succession Act are summary in nature and the Act is not intended to determinate question of law, which could only be settled by a suit and person prima facie having best right to certificate should be granted the same. Learned counsel further relied on death certificate of deceased to contend that Dr. Farrukh Hummayun had verified death of Nusrat Mehmooda wherein petitioner has been shown to be the husband of deceased.
5. Learned counsel for respondent relied on PLD 1969 Lah. 105 to contend that the learned Civil Judge had decided the question of fact raised before him whether rightly or wrongly interference by the High Court in Revision under section 115 is to be refused and that under section 384 only an appeal is provided and revision is not competent.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. In order to prove his case petitioner appeared as A. W.1 and supported his claim. In cross- examination he admitted that he did not participate in the funeral of deceased. Muhammad Anwar A.W.2 had also not attended the funeral of deceased. A.W.3 who is brother of the petitioner admitted that petitioner had entered into a second marriage in the lifetime of deceased. Petitioner in cross-examination also admitted that in his second Nikahnama he had not mentioned regarding permission from deceased. Defendant produced Salamur Rashid as R.W.1. He produced Exh.R/1 nomination by deceased. Tasadaq Hussain appeared as R.W.2 and stated that in his presence petitioner divorced the deceased as she had filed certain application against him.
Muhammad Iqbal Cheema appeared as R.W.3 and stated that deceased had nominated Surriya Begum her elder sister that she after marriage of petitioner made several application to President, Air Chief Martial, Prime Minister, and Minister for State and that petitioner on 29-9-1989 in presence of Tasadaq Hussain divorced the deceased.
8. It is on record that petitioner went to the house of respondent on 29-9-1989 and divorced Nusrat Mehmooda by pronouncing Tallaq. It is also on record that neither the petitioner nor any one for his family went to offer Fateh or for condolence at the death of Nusrat Mehmooda. It is also on record that petitioner few weeks prior to the death of deceased had remarried. The evidence produced by respondent has proved that petitioner had divorced the deceased in her lifetime on 29-9-1989. The learned trial Court has rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner which was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge.
9. Learned counsel for petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below warranting interference by this Court in the revisional jurisdiction. The same are upheld and this petition is dismissed.