' HASSAN RAZA PASHA, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the concurrent findings of both the learned courts below passed in the application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Filed by the petitioner. Earlier, the said application was allowed by the learned trial court but the learned revisional court remanded the matter and thereafter, the learned trial court dismissed the same, which met the same fate before learned revisional court, hence, this writ petition.
2. It is contended that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs of Mst.Allah Wasai (since died) and respondents Nos.3 and 4 (deceased) obtained a collusive judgment and decree in their favour from the court of learned Civil Judge, Layyah dated 8-11-1971. The mother of the petitioner namely Mst.411ali Wasai was "Parda" observing lady and she never appealed before any court of law.
Respondents Nos.3 and 4 who too were females and her close relatives who used to visit the house of petitioner's mother whereas the petitioner's mother Mst.Allah Wasai made an oral gift in favour of Ejaz Hussain and Irshad 'Hussain sons of Ghulam Qasim, the petitioner, her real grand sons and at the time of incorporation of the same in revenue record they came to know about the disputed mutation in favour of the respondents. The aforesaid Ejaz Hussain filed a declaratory suit titled "Ejaz Hussain v. Province of Punjab" and during the proceedings of the above-said case they 'came to know from the Patwari Halqa that in the light of judgment and decree dated 8-11-1971 the mutation was sanctioned. Issues were framed and both the parties led their evidence. Respondents raised certain objections, which are available on record that after the impugned judgment and decree the said Mst.Allah Wasai filed a declaratory suit against the, respondents Nos.3 and 4 regarding the land in dispute stating that the above-said decree was obtained by fraud and ,misrepresentation, which was dismissed as withdrawn after recording the joint statement of the ' parties duly identified and signed by their learned counsel. This fact too is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the collusive decree dated 8-11-1971 was passed by the learned Civil Judge, the written reply was also filed through a counsel.
3. Admittedly, the petition under section 12(2), C.P.C.- was filed after the lapse of a considerable period of 29 years and during this period the sons of present petitioner filed a suit for declaration regarding the land in dispute wherein they challenged the veracity of the disputed mutation and also the declaratory suit filed by Mst.Allah Wasai (deceased) during her life time so all these facts negate the version of the petitioner for getting the knowledge of impugned decree at such a belated stage. During the course of evidence, the petitioner miserably failed to point out any fraud and misrepresentation on the part of respondents. Mere levelling of such like allegations without independent corroboration is not sufficient; they must prove the same through some cogent and trustworthy evidence. Another ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Mst.Allah Wasai .Was a "Parda" observing lady and for that reason she had been defrauded. It is true that she was a lady but at the same time the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were also related to same section of society and they too were also illiterate. Now the question is that how these illiterate ladies managed to get decree from Civil Court in their favour. This too was not possible that they could he managed the collusiveness at such, a high level, which was of course beyond their approach. It is also true that the onus in such like cases lies on the person who takes advantage of the transaction to prove the genuineness of the document through which transaction has been executed and the respondents proved the same through unrebuttal oral as well as documentary evidence.
4. Perusal of the file reveals that the respondents successfully proved the physical appearance of Mst. Allah Wasai before the learned civil court along with her counsel and also the joint statement of both the parties in the proceedings of declaratory suit filed by her, which too was countersigned by her learned counsel. Both the, above-said proceedings were conducted in the Civil Court in presence of their respective lawyers and these were not just mutation proceedings before a revenue officer rather before the Civil Court for which relevant record i.e, entry register etc., also verify the pr6ceedings of both the Civil Courts. So there are two decrees and judgments available in support of the respondents' version and nothing is available to prove the allegations of fraud and misrepresentation levelled by the petitioner. Another important aspect of C the matter is that both the decrees'were never challenged during life time of Mst.Allah Wasai though she remained alive for a considerable period after passing the decrees in favour of respondents Nos.3 and 4. The petitioner miserably failed to prove these allegations with any cogent evidence. This is hardly believable that the petitioner got the knowledge of judgment and decree dated 8-11-1971 just before the filing of application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Therefore, instant petition has no force and the same is dismissed in limine.