1. LAL JAN KHATTAK J.---Mst. Samina Yasmin has impugned theorderdated12-12- 2012ofthelearnedCivilJudge-VIIDera Ismail Khan whereby application of the respondent/plaintiff for production of secondary evidence qua sale-deed dated 22-12-2008 was accepted.
2. 2.Facts giving rise to the instant petition under section 115, C.P.C. are that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner and respondent No.2 seeking specific performance of a deed dated 22-12-2008 through which he had purchased the suit property from the respondent No.2 for sale consideration of Rs.90,000.
3. 3.Plaintiff's case before the trial court is that not only the respondent No.2/defendant No.1 has refused to execute a registered deed or mutation in his favour in pursuance of deed dated 22-12- 2008 but he has further transferred the suit-land to his wife, i.e. the petitioner herein, vide registry dated 13-3-2010.
4. 4.During pendency of the suit, respondent/plaintiff filed an application seeking permission to adduce secondary evidence qua the deed dated 22-12-2008 as the original deed has lost from him. This application was contested by the defendants. The learned trial Court vide its order dated 12-12-2012 accepted the application and allowed the plaintiff to produce secondary evidence of the deed dated 22-12-2008. Petitioner feels aggrieved from the above order has filed the instant civil revision petition.
5. 5.Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under no circumstance the respondent No.1 can be allowed to produce secondary evidence of the deed he relies upon regarding his claim over the suit-land as according to him the deed in question is forged, fake and bogus one. He further submitted that the respondent neither lodged any report for the missing of the deed nor presented any other plausible reason before the court justifying permission to him for adducing its secondary evidence. The learned counsel placed reliance on PLD 2006 Quetta 44 in support of his plea mentioned above.
6. 6.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the available record of the case.
7. 7.According to Article 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, secondary evidence relating to a document may be given when the original document has been destroyed or lost.
8. 8.Plaintiff has averred in para No.1 of his plaint, that he has purchasedthesuit- landforasaleconsiderationofRs.90,00,000 vide deed dated 22-12-2008 from the respondent No.2/defendant wherebyhehadcommittedtotransferthesuit-landtotheplaintiff either by registry or mutation and now he is not honouring his commitment rather he has alienated the suit-land to his wife, i.e. the petitioner in this petition. He not only sought specific performance of deedibid,butalsoprayedforcancellationofthesubsequentdeed dated 13-3-2010 executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioner.
9. 9.The issue brought by the plaintiff before the trial court for resolution is the specific performance of a deed dated 22-12-2008 executed in his favour by the defendant No.1 for consideration, regarding transfer of the suit-land. His entire case hinges on this deed which is a document on which he relies upon in support of his entire claim. If prayer of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is turned down then there remains nothing for him to prove his case. The objections raised by the petitioner/defendant No.2 over the permission granted to the respondentNo.1,areprematureatthisstageastherespondent will face the test of cross-examination by the opposite side qua authenticity of the deed and further admissibility or legality of the deed will be determined on merit by the learned trial Court later on which stage is yet to come.
10. 10.The order impugned by the petitioner seems to be just, proper, unexceptionable and needs no interference by this court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.
11. 11.For the aforesaid reasons, I found the revision petition meritless which is hereby dismissed in limine.