1. ' ZAHID HAMID, J.---C.M.A. No, 165 of 2010 is by consent allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for Objector who has preferred the instant application under section 263 of Succession Act 1925, read with section 151, C.P.C. Contains the narration that the property in dispute i.e. House No,6 Muslimabad 951-JM, measuring 1592 Sq. Yds was fraudulently shown in the schedule of property in the main petition and it should have been excluded and that an appropriate action may be initiated under section 282 of Succession Act 1925 for allegedly committing fraud and breach of trust.
3. By the second application bearing C.M.A. No, 1128 of 2009 the Objector has prayed that the operation of the order granting the main application under sections 278 and 374 of the Succession Act 1925 may be suspended.
2. ' The learned counsel for Objector has contended that the first page of his no objection Affidavit was removed and substituted by another page mentioning that property bearing House No,6 ST-2, Muslimabad, Karachi measuring about 1549 square yard was also the subject-matter for the grant of the main petition.
3. ' The learned counsel has further contended that in fact his deceased father has executed a gift deed in his favour on 12-1-2002. He has placed its copy on record. The same is attested by Special Magistrate First Class, DMC Karachi South and signed by two attesting witnesses namely Muhammad Younus and Syed Arshad Ali. This gift deed also seems to have been sealed by Notary Public. The exact contention of the learned counsel for the Objector is that the objector accepted the gift and was in physical possession of the property and it was wrongly and fraudulently included in the subject-matter of the petition.
4. ' Learned counsel for the Objector Saleem Yar Muhammad has also relied upon sections 263 and 282 of the Succession Act, which reads as follows:-- "263. Revocation or annulment for just cause. The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause."
5. "282, Punishment for false averment in petition or declaration. If any petition or declaration which is hereby required to be verified contains any averment which the person making the verification knows or believes to be false, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code".
6. ' On cursory examination of the above provisions it can be hardly said that they even remotely support the objector.
7. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand has contended that no objection affidavit was properly filed by the Objector at the relevant time in the court proceedings and its original is on record. I have seen this No Objection Affidavit which bears the signature and seal of Consulate General of Pakistan, Los Angeles by way of attestation carried out on 28-11-2003. It is contended that having filed no objection Affidavit in the proceedings the objector cannot turn around and make contradictory claim that the first page of his affidavit was fraudulently replaced by another page by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner fibs also drawn attention of this court to para 6 of the above No Objection Affidavit, which is at page 2 (i.e. Not on the alleged replaced page) and same is not denied by the objector's learned counsel. Para 6 incorporates no objection to the grant of main petition in favour of petitioner. The main petition also contains description of the above immoveable property in schedule which was ostensibly in the knowledge of the Objector.
8. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there a Suit No, 42 of 2010 has also been filed in this Court, wherein, inter alia gift deed has been challenged and its cancellation is sought and wherein stay has also been granted to the effect that no third party interest should be created.
9. 'Learned counsel for the Objector Saleem Yar Muhammad wants that the grant of letter of administration should be annulled by way of its suspension without holding any enquiry or adducing evidence. At this stage it cannot be said that whatever the Objector is saying is true and the entire proceedings should be reversed. Be that as it may whatever course is resorted to as a remedy under the facts and circumstances would ultimately require inquiry and evidence.
10. Accordingly the Objector may file appropriate application for annulment in accordance with law subject to their being prima facie evidence in his favour to support such plea. All the listed C.M.As.
11. Are accordingly dismissed, except C.M.A. No,165 of 2010 for consolidation of this S.M.A. With pending Suit No,42 of 2010 and both may be proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.