' MUSHIR ALAM, J.--The-petitioners, who are successors of one Hashim Din, have impugned the judgment dated 30-4-2013 passed in Civil Revision No,3025 of 2004, whereby concurrent judgments and decrees dated 22-9-2004 and dated 25-4-2003 passed by the learned Additional.
District Judge, Pasrur, District Sialkot and learned Civil Judge, Pasrur, District Sialkot, respectively, were maintained.
2. Brief facts forming matrix of the instant Civil Petition appear to be that Ali Muhammad claimed that originally the suit land measuring 141 Kanals, 14 Marla was allotted to three persons namely Ali Muhammad (plaintiff in suit), his brother Noor Din and one of their close relative Hashim Din per No,190 each had 1/3rd share in the land in joint Khata. It was the case of the plaintiff in suit that Hashim Din (since succeeded by the petitioner), in collusion with the Revenue staff managed to change the revenue entry to show his entitlement to the extent of 1/2 share in the suit land as against his entitlement to the extent of 1/3rd share as per RL-II. Parties engaged into altercation, it was the case of the plaintiff in suit that to resolve the dispute on intervention of elders of the area some settlement was arrived at between the parties. Hashim Din acknowledged his entitlement to the extent of 1/3rd share in the land. Hashim Din made oral gift to the extent of 3 Acres of land and elivered possession to the plaintiff. To record such transaction Hashim Din executed Parcha e Yadasht and the Deputy Commissioner (Claims) passed an order dated 17-2-1959 as recorded in, the Revenue mutation No,123 dated 21-1-1976. It was the case of the plaintiffs in suit that the defendant did not object to the transaction, it was four months before the filing of Application for Partition of the land in joint Khata of the parties it was learnt that the revenue record was not correct, which led the plaintiff to file a suit on 24-9-1996 which was numbered as 639/1998 to challenge the wrong entries in the Revenue record showing Hashim Din as owner of 1/2 of the suit land. Suit was seriously contested and was ultimately decreed on 25-4-2003. Civil Appeal against the judgment of trial Court was allowed, additional issues were framed and suit was remanded for decision afresh after opportunity to parties to lead evidence. The order in appeal was challenged in Civil Revision No,1002 of 2004, revision was allowed on 2-6-2004, appeal was remanded directing the Appellate Court to re-decide the matter, on the basis of available record.
3. Post remand, appeal was heard and was dismissed vide judgment dated 22-9-2004, which was assailed through Civil Revision No,3025 of 2004 in the High Court together with an application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. For bringing on record order dated 17-2-1959 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Claims), Sialkot, which is stated to be part of official record. It was urged that it was on the basis of this order of the Deputy Commissioner (Claims) that mutation dated 21-1-1976 was entered showing Hashim Din as owner to the extent of 50% share in the suit land. Reply to the said application for additional evidence was also filed by the respondent/plaintiff.
4. Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has urged that the implication of order dated 17-2-1959 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Claims), whereby shares of the parties in the suit property were specifically determined was not considered by the learned Revisional Court causing serious prejudice to the petitioner. It was further urged that the Application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Was very much on record of the Revision, which was ignored and or over sighted while deciding the Revision Application.
5. Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondents when confronted with the above, candidly stated that the application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Do not find mentioned in the impugned judgment of the learned Revision Court. It was contended that the matter has been decided on merits. Petitioner had opportunity to make similar application before the Appellate Court which he failed. He cannot be, allowed to assail the impugned judgment, which is otherwise well considered.
According to him, the Application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Was even otherwise not maintainable.
6. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. There is no denial of the fact that the Application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Was filed by the petitioner to which Reply was also filed by the respondents, which was not attended to while deciding Revision Application. Indeed production of additional evidence is normally not encouraged at Revisional stage. However, when any official record sought to be relied upon has direct bearing on the merits of the case, the A Court may examine the implication of such official record to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, moreso, when the learned counsel for the respondents has not shown any serious reservation in case order dated 17-2-1959 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Claims), for whatever worth it may be and subject to proof of its authenticity is considered by the learned Revisional Court after the remand.
7. Accordingly, this Petition is converted into appeal and allowed. Impugned order dated 30-4-2013 passed in Civil Revision No,3025 of 2004 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the High Court for decision afresh, on merits and in accordance with law.
8. Above are the reasons of our short order of 17-10-2014, which is reproduced as follows:- "After hearing the arguments of both the learned ASCs, for the reasons to follow separately, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed; the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 30- 4-2013 is set aside and Civil Revision No,3025 of 2004 is remanded to the Lahore High Court, Lahore, for its disposal along with the application under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Which seems to be pending in the said Civil Revision, on merits and in accordance with law."