' ATIR MAHMOOD, J.---Through this writ petition, the petitioner Fareed Gul has challenged the vires of judgment dated 17-9-2013 passed by Additional District Judge, Multan whereby revision petition filed by respondent No,2 was allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that Gul Muhammad son of Ch. Rehmat Ali died on 30-8-2012; that said Gul Muhammad was a share holder in two limited companies namely Qadir Ghee Industries (Pvt.) Limited and Qadir Oil Industries; that Gul Muhammad was also partner in a firm namely Qadir Corporation and was holding an account in Bank Al-Habib Bahawalpur Road, Multan; that Gul Muhammad left behind him Mst. Nazeer Begum, his real mother (respondent No,2), Mst. Tahira Aziz, his widow and two sons namely Fareed Gul (petitioner) and Sheraz Gul (respondent No,4). After death of Gul Muhammad, the petitioner was appointed as Managing Director and respondent No,3 as Director of the business left by their father Gul Muhammad.
3. In order to meet the necessary legal as well as business requirements, the petitioner filed an application on 28-1-2013 for issuance of succession certificate giving description of legal heirs as well as of moveable property of late Gul Muhammad. In the application, other legal heirs of Gul Muhammad including Mst. Nazeer Begum (real mother of Gul Muhammad) were impleaded as respondents. Mst. Nazeer Begum first submitted her conceding reply admitting the factual position but later on, resiled from her earlier stance submitting an application with the prayer that she wanted to file another reply to petitioner's application for succession certificate. On agreeing to the same by the petitioner, the reply was submitted by Mst. Nazeer Begum but the matter prolonged and on 3-5-2013, respondent No,2 Mst. Nazeer Begum also made an application for issuance of succession certificate impleading therein a number of other persons other than those impleaded by the petitioner. Thereafter, three other applications were also filed by respondent No,2. One of the applications was for deciding both the applications for succession certificate together by way of consolidating them. The second application was for issuing direction to the petitioner for providing all the details of the business, assets and moveable/immoveable properties. The 3rd application claimed that other partners of the companies may also be impleaded. All the three applications were dismissed vide single order dated 21-5-2013. A revision petition was also filed by respondent No,2 to set aside the said order which revision petition was ultimately dismissed on 27-8-2013.
Another revision petition was filed by respondent. No,2 which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan vide judgment dated 17-9-2013 by way of consolidating both the applications of petitioner as well as respondent No,2 for issuance of succession certificate. Hence this Writ Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts; that there is no provision of law by which applications for succession certificates could be consolidated as under the prevailing law, everyone interested in the inheritance may file an application regarding his interest in the property; that under the law, if more than one applications are submitted for succession certificates, those are to be decided separately to the extent of share of the respective applicants; that the application of respondent No,2, ipso facto, seems to be a civil suit rather than an application for succession certificate; that second revision petition was not competent after dismissal of first revision petition; that vide order dated 21-5-2013, three applications of respondent No,2 were dismissed and if any of the claims made therein was not challenged in first revision, it could not be raised in the second revision under Order II Rule 2 C.P.C.; that learned Addition 1 District Judge has passed the impugned judgment in violation of provisions of Succession Act, 1925 causing miscarriage of justice, therefore the judgment impugned cannot sustain in the eye of law. He prays that this writ petition be allowed and the impugned judgment be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently controverted the assertions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and fully supported the impugned judgment.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. In the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, no provision for consolidation of civil suits is provided but the court may consolidate different suits to avoid conflict of judgments provided the parties in the suits are the same and the cause of action is common. In the present case, the petitioner filed an application under section 372 of Succession Act, 1925 impleading respondents Nos.2 to 4 as legal heirs of deceased Gul Muhammad son of Ch. Rehmat Ali. Admittedly, the deceased Gul Mullah was succeeded by the present petitioner and respondents Nos.2 to 4. Respondent No,2 Mst. Nazeer Begum is real mother whereas respondent No,3 Sheraz Gul is son and respondent No,4 Mst. Tahira Aziz is widow of the deceased. Apparently, in the presence of the said legal heirs of the deceased, no other person can be termed as legal heir of the deceased qua the properties left by the deceased.
8. Perusal of the application filed under section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 by respondent No,2, being real mother of the deceased, reflects that a number of other persons other than actual legal heirs have been arrayed as respondents therein alleging that they are also entitled for share in the properties left by the deceased as deceased Gul Muhammad through fraud and concealment of facts had usurped the property of Ashiq Muhammad, who happened to be his real brother. Ashiq Muhammad had since died, his children were impleaded as respondents in the application filed by respondent No,2. There are many other allegations levelled against deceased Gul Muhammad regarding frauds committed by him. I am afraid that such allegations could be subject matter of a civil suit but not that of the application under section 372 of the Succession Act, 1925 for grant of succession certificate. If legal heirs of Ashiq Muhammad had any grievance against the conduct of deceased Gul Muhammad, they may assert their rights in a civil suit for redress of their grievance as, such matters could not be dealt with in application under section 372 of the Succession Act.
9. The application filed by the petitioner has entirely a different scenario from that of the application filed by respondent No,2 as the latter includes not only the different parties but different causes of action as well. In my view, two applications having distinct features cannot be consolidated, as such, the revisional court has exceeded its jurisdiction while allowing consolidation of applications for succession certificates. As such, these findings are not sustainable in the eye of law.
10. There is yet another aspect of the case that the order passed by the trial court on 21-5-2013 dismisses three applications of respondent No,2 filed for deciding both the applications of the petitioner and respondent No,2 for succession certificate together by way of consolidating them; for issuing direction to the petitioner for providing all the details of the business, assets and moveable/immoveable properties and for impleading other partners of the companies in the matter as well. The said order was assailed by respondent No,2 in Civil Revision No,243-R/2013 on 13-6-2013 in which she did not challenge the findings of the trial court to the extent of dismissal of her claim regarding consolidation of the two applications. The said revision petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 27-8-2013. During the pendency of the said revision petition, a subsequent Revision Petition No,99-R/2013 was also filed by respondent No,2 on 19-8-2013 without disclosing filing of earlier civil revision and concealing the filing of earlier civil revision petition, as such, the learned Additional District Judge has not adverted to these factors. In my view, subsequent revision petition was not maintainable in view of the earlier revision petition filed by the same party challenging the same judgment. To my mind, filings of different revision petitions on the same cause of action are not maintainable. Subsequent revision petition against the same judgment attacking different findings of the same judgment which were not assailed in the earlier revision petition by respondent No,2 was not maintainable, as such, the revisional court was not justified to accept the subsequent revision petition filed by respondent No,2.
11. F u r the aforementioned reasons, this Writ Petition is allowed and the order impugned is set aside.