' YAR MUHAMMAD, J. --- Through this revision petition, the petitioner has called in question the validity and propriety of the order dated 14.9.2013 passed by District Judge, Hunza-Nagar whereby the learned Judge while up holding the order dated 24.4.2013 passed by learned executing Court in an application filed under Rules 100/101 of Order XXI, C.P.C., by the petitioner, has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in which the validity of the above order was challenged.
2. Before embarking on merit discussion, I would like to point out the shortfalls observed by me in this petition vide which the petitioner has totally failed in appending the necessary and relevant documents with the petition on which basis the petition is to be decided which was the primary duty of the party who came in Court with the revision petition for redressal. Law provides that when a revision petition is filed invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the Court, the record pertained to the dispute lying with Courts below normaily is not requisitioned rather it is expected from the party who came in Court has equipped his petition with all and necessary documents answering all questions arising in the mind of Judge during the course of arguments and at the time of writing judgment. The effects for non-appending such all documents with the petition will be discussed later.
3. To be very brief, the relevant facts leading to this litigation as emanating from the perusal of documents referred to me by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of arguments are that on 12.10.1992 the father of respondents filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Gilgit against Khuda Dad the "father of the present petitioner in respect of the disputed property but instantly the written statement was not filed that the parties agreed to get the dispute settled through arbitrators and accordingly the matter was referred to the arbitrators. After carrying investigation in the matter the arbitrators on 27.2.1993 filed their award. On inviting objections by the learned Court as provided under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, Khuda Dad "the defendant in the suit filed objections against the award. The objection application to the award, however, was disposed of by the learned Trial Court through his order dated 28.9.1995 vide which he dismissed the application and made the award rule of the Court.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court, the objector/defendant filed appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Gilgit who through his order dated 26.5.1996 disposed of the appeal dismissing the same. The order of the learned District Judge, was challenged in revisional side before this Court but during pendency of the petition Khuda Dad the father of present petitioner died resultantly, legal heirs to the deceased defendant were impleaded in whom the instant petitioner was included. After fulfilling the above legal requirement, the revision petition was decided by this Court through order dated 7.10.1999 dismissing the same.
5. The present petitioner who was impleaded as LR to her deceased father when the revision petition was pending adjudication before this Court, filed an application before this Court invoking the provisions laid under sub section (2) of Section 12, C.P.C. challenging the judgment and decree dated 7.10.1999 alleging the same was based on fraud, misrepresentation and without jurisdiction.
Anyhow, the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. was dismissed by this Court through its order dated 23.4.2002 holding not maintainable. Consequent upon the above results born by the parties in the above round of litigation, the plaintiff/decree-holder filed execution proceeding before the executing Court where again the present petitioner filed an application under Rules 100/101 of Order XXI, C.P.C. resisting the execution proceeding. The learned executing Court after adopting due course of law, disposed of the said petition through order dated 24.4.2013 which was challenged before learned District Judge concerned through filing first appeal. The learned District Judge vide his Order dated 14.9.2013 dismissed the appeal by maintaining the order dated 24.4.2013 hence this revision petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel of the parties which they advanced in the light of documents available on their own files. The learned counsel for the petitioner assailed that the learned executing Court failed in properly disposing of the application filed under Rules-100/101 of Order XXI, C.P.C. but again to say that the learned counsel has failed to bring on record the findings of the executing Court returned in the above application. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents claimed that all applications, appeals and revision petitions filed in this litigation by the parties as discussed above have been adjudicated on merit that too in accordance with law and procedure.
7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the undisputed facts emerged in this litigation in the light of above background of the case. The present petitioner in her capacity as LR when became party as defendant in the case could not be allowed to file such application to resist the possession of the land being delivered to the decree-holder because after becoming party as LR, she was legally stopped even to file the application under Section 12(2), C.P.C. when revision petition was pending adjudication before this Court. After completion of the first round of litigation and when the execution proceedings commenced in the executing Court, the petitioner while taking help from the provisions laid under Rules-100/101 of Order XXI, C.P.C. has filed the instant petition, is nothing but male fide. The conduct of the petitioner in this litigation shows that the petitioner is determined not to spare the respondent/plaintiff from this litigation. During the course of arguments it was brought to the notice of this Court that by now the possession of the decreed land has also been delivered to the respondent/petitioner hence the petition otherwise has also become infructuous.
8. So far the maintainability of the petition is concerned, as I have pointed out at the very beginning that the petitioner has totally failed to bring on record all the memos, of appeals, copies of revision petitions, objection petition and miscellaneous application filed by the parties during different stages of the litigation and the judgment/orders passed in these matters by the Court of first instance to this Court which were mandatory to be appended with the petition as envisaged by law relevant to the revision petitions which provides that all the documents as required under the proviso to ,Section 115, C.P.C. are mandatory to be produced. The relevant proviso of Section 115, C.P.C. is reproduced as under for ready reference:-- "Provided that where a person makes an application under this sub-section, he shall in support of such application, furnish copies of the pleadings, documents and orders of the subordinate Courts and the High Court shall, except for reasons to be recorded, dispose of such application without calling record of the subordinate Courts."
9. It has been noticed that no document has been brought on the record by the petitioner available to her in the light of above background of this litigation on which basis she could allege any injustice was done with her.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, I hold that the revision petition has not been properly instituted as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 115, C.P.C., and on merit too the petition could not be answered in the affirmative. Consequently, same is dismissed.