' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.---Order dated 24-06-2014, of the learned District Judge Skardu, that he passed in CFA No.18/14, of said court, has been challenged through this revision petition. Through impugned order, the learned first appellate Court dismissed petition dated 24-06-2014, that petitioner/appellant filed under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., seeking filing of a gift deed dated 18 Rabi- ul-Awal 1396 Hijri.
2. Respondent/plaintiff filed a suit (C.S. No.107-25/09) which was decreed through order dated 14- 04-2014 in the following words:-- ' Issue No.13/Relief:
19. The upshot of the above discussion is that the suit of the plaintiff is decreed that he is the legal heir of Mst. Sakina daughter of Haider Bi and the mutation attested in favour of defendant is 582 attested on 08-11-1974 is cancelled declaring illegal and against the fact and law. Parties to bear their own cost.
' Feeling aggrieved from the said judgment/decree, petitioner/defendant filed C.F.A. No.18/14. On 24-06-2014, petitioner/defendant presented a petition under Order XIII Rule 2, C.P.C. Read with Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C., seeking filing of a gift deed dated 18 Rabi-ul-Awal 1396 Hijri. In para No.3 of the said petition, petitioner/defendant averred that he lost the said gift deed about 10 to 15 years prior to writing of said application. The learned first appellate court dismissed the said application through impugned order.
3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the material available on file. The question debated before me is the maintainability of the petition under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C.
Read with Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. Learned counsel for petitioner failed to convince me that why he had joined Order ,XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. With Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., as 'both the provisions of said laws have different meaning, import and connotation? I have gone through the provisions of Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. The aim of provisions of Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. Are affording a chance to the parties for A filing documentary evidence that was not in possession of parties at the time of filing of suit or filing of the written statement. In the case in hand, the document sought to be filed is a gift deed and is a private document. While considering permission or otherwise of filing of documents under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C., courts are required to be vigilant as to any kind of foul play on the part of the party seeking filing of a document. The document sought to be filed is allegedly a very old document and was supposed to be in possession of the petitioner. As has already been remarked (supra) that the document was in possession of petitioner but he somehow lost the same about 10 or 15 years prior to presenting the petition under Order XIII, Rule 2, C.P.C. So the most important question for consideration is, whether we find any mention of possession of the document and losing the same in pleadings of petitioner? Thus the averments of the written statement of petitioner have attained very importance.
4. I have gone through para No.6 of the parawise written statement dated 25-09-2009, wherein, petitioner has clearly averred that he is in possession and control of the suit land as donee of the suit land. Petitioner/defendant further averred in the same para that respondent/ Plaintiff has acknowledged this fact through many documents.##TSE## A very interesting and astonishing aspect of the case is that petitioner/defendant is silent in his written statement that he lost the document. Petitioner did not-express anywhere in his written statement that he would file the said document as and when he found the same. We find only mention of the word donee regarding the petitioner, and to that extent, the learned trial court has framed issues and have afforded full chance to the petitioner to prove the same. Moreover, contents of issues Nos.10 and 12 also show that petitioner/defendant was bound to prove transfer of suit land to him through gift: In para No.11 of the, plaint, respondent/plaintiff has specifically averred that mutation No.582 was attested in favour of petitioner/defendant on the basis of oral gift. Mutation No.582 admittedly pertains to the gift deed sought to be filed through this petition. While replying the contents of said para, petitioner/defendant has just denied the contents of said para, without any elaboration to the effect that he has any written gift deed. Eight (8) or nine (9) years have passed since start of the litigation between the parties and petitioner is silent that when he found the lost document. This conduct of the petitioner shows that the petition is based on mala fides and correctness of the document sought to be filed is not fair.
5. In these circumstances, I hold that the impugned order is not result of any irregularity etc. Inviting interference of this court. I, therefore, dismiss this petition. This file be consigned to record.