CH. SHAHID SAEED, J. -- Through the instant civil revision petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment & decree dated 22.09.2000 passed by learned Addl. District Judge Bhakkar by way of which appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 was accepted and his suit for declaration was decreed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Muhammad sulman filed a suit for declaration against the defendants to the effect that the general power-of-attorney deed registered on 05.03.1980 allegedly from the plaintiff as well as defendants No. 2 to 11 in favour of Mehboob Khan is a fictitious and forged document and the same may be cancelled, it was also prayed in the plaint that defendant No. 1 should be restrained from alienating the suit land under the garb of said power-of- attorney.
3. Defendant No. 1/petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court and contested the suit by tooth and nail and submitted his written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties learned Trial Court framed the necessary issues including relief. Both the parties got recorded their oral as well as documentary evidence. Ultimately learned Trial Court after hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties dismissed the suit of the respondent No, 1, He filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Appellate Court and the suit was decreed. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment & decree petitioners have preferred the instant civil revision.
4. a Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court is against law and facts and also not sustainable in the eyes of law; that judgment of the learned Trial Court is supported by sound reasons based on evidence on the record, however the learned Additional District Judge has neither met with reasons advanced by the Trial Court nor it has tried to find out the basis thereof. The learned Additional District Judge while deciding issues No. 1, 8, 9 and 9-A, wherein most important question with regard to the validity of General Power-of-Attorney dated 04.03.1980 is involved has not taken into consideration the subsequent conduct of the parties. That the judgment & decree passed by the learned Appellate Court is based on mis-reading and non-reading of evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the defendant No. 3 Muhammad Akbar and defendant No. 6 Mst. Farida were minors at the time of execution of alleged general power-of-attorney dated 05.03.1980 in favour of defendant No. 1 Mehboob Khan, whereas the defendant No. 5 Mst. Shamim Akhtar was in abroad at that time, therefore, the general power- of-attorney is a fictitious and forged document. Learned counsel has also supported the impugned judgment & decree of the learned Appellate Court.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. From the perusal of documentary evidence available on record it reveals that Mst. Farida and Akbar defendants were minors at the time of execution of alleged general power-of-attorney and as per law they were not entitled to get execute the general power-of-attorney in favour of Mehboob Khan petitioner. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that Mst. Asghri Begum was the guardian of the minors and the said power-of- attorney was executed through their mother, has no force and the same is repelled because if Mst. Asghri Begum was the guardian of the said minors then why the names and thumb marks of the said minors are mentioned in the bottom of the said attorney. Furthermore, if the situation was the same as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners then it was necessary to mention the names of the above-said minors through their representative in the head note of the alleged document but this fact is also missing from the said document, therefore, it can safely be held that the general power-of- attorney was illegally got executed on behalf of the minors and this document has no bearance in the eyes of law.
8. Furthermore, documentary evidence produced by the defendant No. 5 Mst. Shamim Akhtar further reflects that she was out of country at the time of execution of the alleged power-of- attorney, whereas petitioners have not produced any document in rebuttal to prove that at the relevant time she was available in Pakistan. The attesting witness Abdul Qayyum Khan, Advocate has stated in his statement that he did identify the defendants No. 2 to 11 on the asking of defendant No. 1. He further admitted in his statement that no minor appeared before the Sub- Register in his presence. He also disclosed that he did not remember whether Mst. Shamim Akhtar was residing abroad at that time or not. After careful scanning of the whole record I am of the considered view that the. Impugned general power-of- attorney deed dated 05.03.1980 is a fictitious and forged document and the same is void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff as well as defendants No. 2 to 11.
9. The learned Appellate Court has correctly appreciated the evidence placed on record to arrive at a right conclusion and the judgment & decree passed by the learned Addl. District Judge Bhakkar is well-reasoned and in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the impugned"judgment & decree. I do not find any merit in the instant civil revision and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.