' RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court has been directed against the order of the High Court dated 12-10-2010, whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents was accepted.
2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that a declaratory suit was filed by the appellants before the Senior Civil Judge, Mirpur, alleging therein that the land in dispute measuring 63 kanals was purchased by the grandfather of the appellants through a sale- deed. During the war of liberation in 1947, the revenue record of the village Dhangri Bahadar was ablazed.
Meanwhile, the father of the respondents maneuvered the revenue record and got entered his name as owner During the pendency of suit, an application was moved by the plaintiffs-appellants in the trial Court for placing on record a copy of misl-i-haqiati for the year 1986-87 Bk. This application was allowed by the trial Court while observing that the defendants-respondents have every right to contradict or challenge its correctness. This order was .Challenged by the respondents-defendants before the High Court through a revision petition, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 12-10-2010, which is the subject matter of this appeal..
3. Mr. Muhammad Reaz Alam, Advocate, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that the impugned order of the High Court is based on misinterpretation of the relevant provision of law which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He further argued that finding of the High Court that the document, i,e,,misl-i-haqiat, has not been procured by following the prescribed procedure, therefore, the same is inadmissible in evidence, is against law. The learned .High Court failed to take into account that the document can only be challenged during the cross-examination and such stage has not come as yet. He contended that the learned High Court tried to pre-empt the jurisdiction of the trial Court which is not warranted under law. He further contended that the' learned High Court also fell in error while not taking into consideration that the order of the trial Court for placing the document referred to above was subject to some conditions which were perfectly in accordance with law of land which cannot be vacated without assigning any reasons.
He submitted that the order of the trial Court was passed in the light of the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, therefore, there was no justification to vacate the same. In this way, the appellants was penalized without any fault.
4. On the other hand, Ch. Muhammad Mehfooz, Advocate, the learned counsel for the defendants- respondents strongly refuted the arguments advanced by the learned, counsel for the appellants.
He submitted that the impugned order has been passed after due deliberation and based on legal backing which warrants no interference by this Court. He further submitted that the document, i,e,, 'misl-i-haqiat, has been procured while bypassing the relevant procedure, therefore, such like document cannot be allowed to place on record. He further submitted that all record pertaining to the year 1986-87 Bk. Of Tehsil Mirpur is available at Mirpur, therefore, there was no occasion to get the copy from the occupied Kashmir, the government of which is not recognized by the people of Azad Kashmir. He contended that all the authorities established in the area which is under illegal occupation of the India have no legal status. Therefore, any document issued by such authorities cannot be relied by the Courts of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. As the claim of the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is that the whole area of Azad Jammu and Kashmir is part and parcel of Jammu and Kashmir and the India is usurper who forced the people of occupied Kashmir to live under the .Control of India on the gunpoint and the people of occupied Kashmir are fighting for their right of self determination. Therefore, any document which has been issued by any revenue authority which is under the control of an unrecognized authority has no value in the eye of law. He further contended that the learned High Court has not committed any illegality while recording the findings in the revision petition. He added that if this document is allowed and declared admissible in evidence then it will amount to open a door to prepare such like documents for which no source of rebuttal is available. As the scribe of the document cannot be summoned as a witness to verify the same, therefore, the same is against the relevant provisions of Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984, and the relevant provisions, of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at some length and gone through the record made available along with the impugned order. The whole controversy in this case revolves around a document, i,e,, 'misl-i-haqiat' which allegedly have been procured from the area of Jammu and Kashmir which is under illegal possession of the India. The administration and judiciary in that area is not recognized by the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Even otherwise, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no source of rebuttal of that document as the person who prepared the same could not be summoned to verify the same has a substance which cannot be overlooked. Whereas, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that opportunity of rebuttal before the trial Court is available and it is premature to adjudge that this document is admissible or inadmissible, has no force as the objection regarding the admissibility must be taken at the early stage to meet the ends of justice. Almost the same situation has been dealt with by the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in a case reported as fatal Khan and another v. Imam Din and others (PLD 1970 AJ&K 88), wherein it has been observed that: "Forcible occupation of the better and greater part of the State by an invading army and perpetuation of this occupation against popular will and by turning the occupied area into a vast concentration camp, does not turn the occupied territory into a foreign country so for as the Azad Government of Jammu and Kashmir or Jammu and Kashmir nationals living on this side of the cease-fire-line are concerned. Kashmir has, strictly speaking, on parallel in the history of modern International Law, Germany, Korea or Indo-China despite being divided have no parallel to the division of Kashmir. Here, even under the United Nations resolutions to which India is committed, the future of the State's accession to Pakistan or India has yet to be decided through a plebiscite.
Azad Government rightly treats Indian occupation across the cease-fire-line as a naked aggression. Same is the policy and stand of the Pakistan Government. The United Nations also treats the Jammu and Kashmir State as a disputed territory whose accession to Pakistan or India has yet to be determined. In fact the de jure recognition of India occupation has remained and continues to remain, the main objective of the Indian foreign Policy but the same has been repudiated not only by the Azad Government, Pakistan, many freedom- loving countries of the world but even by the United Nations which does not show Kashmir as part of India; it remains on its agenda.
' Under these circumstances it cannot be validly held that occupied territory across the 500-miles long uneasy cease-fir-line is a foreign territory. As it has been held that occupied Kashmir is not a foreign country, the judgment in question is not a foreign judgment within the meaning of section 2(5) and the certificate required under section 86, Evidence Act has no application to the present case.
' We now pass on to another aspect of the question. The copy of judgment in question has been issued after the setting up of the Azad Government and has been issued and certified under the authority of the High Court in occupied territory. As the Azad Government is the de jure Government of the entire State and the High Court across the cease-fire-line is neither established nor maintained by this Government, certification of it by the said High Court's issuing agency is a nullity in the eye of law and has to be ignored."
' After survey of above said case-law, it appears that the document/order issued by the Courts of occupied Kashmir cannot be given the status of the document/order issued by the foreign country as the same does not fall under the purview of foreign State and the status of occupied Kashmir is yet to be determined according to the resolutions of United Nations Organization and the wishes of the people of Kashmir. To prove a public document we are guided by Article .89 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, which speaks as under:- "89. Proof of other public documents.--The following public documents may be proved as follows:-
(a) Acts, orders or notifications of the Federal Government in any of its departments, or of any Provincial Government or any department of any Provincial Government- by the records of the departments, certified by the heads of those departments respectively, or by any document purporting to be printed by order of any such Government;
(b) the proceeding of the legislatures, by the journals of those bodies respectively, or by published Acts or abstracts, or by copies purporting to be printed by order of the Government concerned;
(c) the Acts of the Executive or the proceedings of the Legislature of a foreign country, by journals published by their authority, or commonly received in that country as such or by a copy certified under the seal of a country or sovereign, or by a recognition thereof in some Federal Act;
(d) the proceedings of a municipal body in Pakistan by a copy of such proceedings, certified by the legal keeper thereof, or by a printed book purporting to be published by the authority of such body; and
(e) public documents of any other class in a foreign country, by the original, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof with a certificate under the seal of a notary public, or of a Pakistan Consul or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country."
'After going through the above said provision specially clause 'e' it appears that the public document of any other class in a foreign country, by the original, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof with a certificate under the seal of a notary public, or of a Pakistan Consul or diplomatic agent, that the copy is duly certified by the officer having the legal custody of the original, and upon proof of the character of the document according to the law of the foreign country can be considered as a public document of a foreign country. Whereas, the position in the instant case is not same as discussed hereinabove in context of clause (e) of Article 89 of Qanun- e-Shahadat Order, 1984, because the Government of occupied Kashmir is not recognized by the people of Azad Jammu and Kashmir or the Government. The document which the plaintiffs- appellants want to produce is only an attested copy of agency under the control of the Government of the occupied Kashmir and the same has not been certified under the seal of consul or diplomat. Even otherwise, if the document is certified under the seal of consul or diplomat, then too, the document cannot be brought in the purview of Article 89 of Qanun-e- Shahadat Order, 1984, as the Indian occupied Kashmir does not hold the status of a foreign country. Moreover, no mode is available to verify this document that the original is in the possession of the same person who issued it. Such like document cannot be given any authenticity without any codal backing; therefore, the same is not admissible in evidence.
' In the light of what has been discussed above, this appeal has no force the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to the costs.