' SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.---A civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed before the learned Trial Court by the respondents, whereby they challenged the validity of gift mutation No.942, whereby father of the petitioner and respondents Ashiq and Arif namely Jani gifted the suit land to Allah Ditta (present petitioner).
2. The suit was resisted by the present petitioner/defendant and deceased respondent No.9- Ahmad Ali by filing their written statement.
3. The divergence in the pleadings was summed up into issues. Both the parties produced their evidence oral as well as documentary in pro and contra.
4. After hearing arguments, learned Trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.12.2000 decreed the suit in favour of the respondents. Being aggrieved of the said judgment and decree, present petitioner/defendant and respondent No.9 preferred an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, which was subsequently dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated: 05.07.2007.
5. Being aggrieved of the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below, the petitioner/defendant has filed the present civil revision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the learned Courts below have not appreciated the evidence brought on record in a proper manner. Further maintains that the learned Courts below have committed illegality while passing the impugned judgments and decrees and the same are against law and facts. Adds that both the learned Courts below have passed the impugned judgments and decrees in a hasty, fanciful and mechanical manner. There are material irregularities and illegalities while passing the impugned judgments and decrees and the same suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence, therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees, being not sustainable in the eye of law, may be set-aside by allowing the present civil revision and suit of the respondents may be dismissed.
7. By controverting the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents, by favoring the impugned judgments and decrees, has prayed for dismissal of the present civil revision. Reliance is placed upon Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board, Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others, 2014 SCM R 161, Jamshaid Ali Khan and another v. Ghulam Sayed and another, 2014 YLR 301; Muhammad Khan v. Messrs Murree Brewery Company Ltd. And others, 2014 YLR 1467; Noor-ulHaq and others v. Liaqat Shah, 2014 YLR 1469; Bashir Ahmed Mirza v. Kamaluddin Alvi and others, 2014 YLR 1097; Ghulam Muhammad and another v. Mian Abdul Karim through L.Rs., 2014 YLR 774; Rab Nawaz and others v. Ghulam Rasul, 2014 SCM R 1181; Haider All Khan and another v. Razia Begum and others, 2014 M LD 766; Naimat Ullah v. Faizullah Khan, 2014 M LD 878; Muhammad Akbar v. Mst. Suraya Begum and others, 2014 M LD 1080; United Bank Limited and others v. Noor-Un-Nisa and others, 2015 SCM R 380; Allah Dino and another V. Muhammad Shah and others, 2001 SCM R 286; City District Government, Lahore through District Coordination Officer, Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin, 2006 SCM R 676; Mst. Naeema Jehan v. Mst. Akbari and 4 others, 2014 YLR 116; Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Bagh Ali and others, 2010 YLR 1908 and Dilbad Shah v. S.Rehmat Shah and others, PLD 2007 Peshawar 103.
8. Heard.
9. The beneficiary of a gift oral or written, when challenged by the rival party, was under burden to prove that the same was validly executed after fulfillment of all the ingredients, which are as follows:--
(i) Offer.
(ii) Acceptance.
(iii) Delivery of possession.
10. Now it is to be seen whether gift was validly made in favour of petitioner by the donor. In order to substantiate his stance, the petitioner produced witnesses; when depositions of D. Ws. Are scanned, it divulges that DW-3 Allah Ditta in his statement has stated that possession of the disputed land was handed over at the time of making gift, however, later on, the respondents forcibly dispossessed the petitioner (date not mentioned). After that Allah Ditta filed a suit for possession regarding the disputed land. However, there is nothing on record to show that he was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents. No other independent evidence supporting his stance has been produced. Hence, his statement regarding dispossession is self-made and is not trustworthy. Perusal of statements of Ahmed Ali and DW-5 reveals that they have no knowledge of killa number and square number of exchange land, therefore, their statements cannot be relied upon.
11. Moreover, there are many contradictions in the statements of DWs regarding presence of witnesses. DW-3 is the present petitioner, who stated that he along with his father visited Tehsildar, who verified the gift mutation No.942 in their presence. As per his statement, entry of said mutation was made on 01.03.1995 and its verification was made on 29.03.1995, whereas according to statement of DW-4 Haji Arshad Ali, who is the marginal witness of the alleged gift mutation, when he visited the Tehsildar, he (Tehsildar) was not present there at that time. Above all these facts, it is admitted by DW-2 Bashir Ahmed Halqa Patwari that it is not clear from the mutations who was present at the time of execution of the said mutation. Moreover, thumb impressions affixed upon the mutations No.942 and 952 also not proved who have affixed these thumb impressions. DW-2 Bashir Ahmed on one side stated that the entry was made in Roznamcha Waqiati but he could not produce any Roznamcha to prove his stance.
12. It is noteworthy that second Marginal witness namely Manzoor Ahmed was not produced before the Trial Court. His statement was necessary to be recorded in order to prove the execution of disputed mutation; because under Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, for proving a document production of two truthful witnesses is sine qua non, which is lacking in this case. So an adverse presumption can be made that had he appeared in the Court, he would not have supported the stance of petitioner.
13. In addition to above, the impugned judgment and decree was passed by the learned Appellate Court on 05.07.2007, whereas the present civil revision was filed on 24.11.2007; according to law the petitioner has to file the civil revision within ninety days of passing the impugned judgment and decree or when certified copies of the same were obtained. In this view of the matter, present civil revision is clearly time-barred. Reliance is placed on 'City District Government, Lahore through District Coordination Officer, Lahore v. Mian Muhammad Saeed Amin, 2006 SCM R 676.
14. At revisional stage, the finding of the learned Trial Court below on facts cannot be interfered by this Court, which has limited scope and the Court only has to see whether any material illegality, irregularity or wrong exercise of jurisdiction was committed by the learned Court below but in the instant case, there is no such occasion to warrant interference by this Court in the impugned judgments and decrees. In this regard, guideline can be sought from Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCM R 161), wherein it has invariably been held that:-- "Revisional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked against conclusions of law or fact, which did not, in any way, affect jurisdiction of the Court---High Court could not have investigated into facts or exercised its jurisdiction on the basis of facts of grounds, which were already proved by parties by leading evidence---High Court was justified in not interfering in concurrent findings of facts which were based on material brought on record and proper appreciation of evidence."
15. In view of the above discussion, both the learned Courts below have appreciated the evidence oral as well as documentary brought on record in its true perspective and no misreading and non- reading has been committed, therefore, the same cannot be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Muhammad Idrees and others v.
Muhammad Pervaiz and others 2010 SCM R 5.
16. ##TSE## Crux of above discussion is that the present civil revision being devoid of any force and substance stands dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.