The precise facts of the case are that subject property measuring 141 Kanals 14 Marlas being evacuee was transferred to Noor Din, Ali Muhammad sons of Dheeru and Hashim Din. Ali Muhammad Respondent No, 1 without imp leading his brother instituted a declaratory suit before the learned Trial Court while claiming that entire property had been allotted to afforested three persons in equal shares, but it was wrongly implemented in the revenue record to the extent of 1/2 share in favour of Hashim Din and its remaining 1/2 to Respondent No. 1 along with his brother.
When the said situation was agitated before Hashim Din petitioner, he executed gift-deed to the extent of excess property of his entitlement in favour of Respondent No. 1/plaintiff and through the suit he prayed for declaring him owner thereof on the basis of said gift-deed (Exh.P2). Both the Courts below while considering gift-deed (Exh.P2) being valid document, decreed the suit of Respondent No. 1 and dismissed the appeal of present petitioners through impugned judgments and decrees, which were assailed through civil revision in hand, it was also accompanied by an application (C.M. No. 1-C. of 2004) filed under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for production of copy of order dated 17.02.1959 passed by Deputy Claim Commissioner, Sialkot in additional evidence. At prior point of time, without attending to said application, this Court vide order dated 30.04.2013 dismissed the instant civil revision while concluding in Para-6 the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder: "... Although the offer and acceptance of Hibba is not duly proved but it is established on the record that the land was allotted to three persons in equal shares and they have been in possession of their respective shares. The subsequent change in RL-II was unauthorized and has no value in the eyes of law. The case law cited at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable on the facts of the instant petition. Both the Courts of competent jurisdiction after appraisal of the evidence have arrived at the same conclusion and their concurrent findings do not call for any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. For the reasons supra, the civil revision is without merits and the same is hereby dismissed."
(emphasis provided by this Court)
This judgment was only assailed by the petitioners through preferring C.P.No. 1349 of 2013 before the apex Court, which was allowed and instant civil revision was remanded to this Court for decision afresh vide order dated 17.10.2014. For ready reference concluding Para-6 thereof being relevant is reproduced herein below: "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, CP.0 was filed by the petitioner to which Reply was also filed by the respondents, which wa3 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 he relied upon has direct bearing on the merits of the case, the Court may examine the implication of such official record to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, more so, when the learned counsel for the respondents has not shown any serious reservation in case order dated 17.02.1959 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."
2. Today during the course of arguments Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate, learned counsel for petitioners has pointed out that this Court vide order dated 30.04.2013 has already observed that Respondent No. 1/plaintiff failed to prove his alleged gift and in absence of Noor Din, one of the original three allottees, it could not be concluded that property in dispute had been allotted in three equal shares to All Muhammad, Noor Din and Hashim Din. On having been faced with the said situation, Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents, while conceding it has submitted that Respondent No. 1/plaintiff be allowed to implead his brother Noor Din or his successors in the suit, who could not be impleaded in the litigation so far, he while showing Courtesy anti seeking instructions has raised no objection that after setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below suit of Respondent No. 1/plaintiff be remanded to the learned Trial Court for allowing him to implead his brother or his successors as defendants in his suit and the parties be also permitted to lead their further evidence, if so desired. The offer of Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, Advocate, learned counsel for respondents has readily been accepted by Mr. Tariq Masood, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners with the further prayer that the documents referred in aforenoted miscellaneous application (C.M.No. 1-C of 2012) may also be allowed to be brought on the record.
3. In view of above unanimity, the instant civil revision is accepted, impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are hereby set aside and the suit filed by Respondent No. 1/plaintiff will be deemed to be pending before the learned Trial Court, who will decide the same afresh after allowing Respondent No. 1/plaintiff to implead his brother Noor Din or his successors in the suit by filing amended, plaint, which will, of course, be followed by filing of written statement by the newly impleaded party as well as amended written statement by the other defendants as the situation may be and thereafter the parties will also be at liberty to lead their further evidence, which drill work should be completed within next six months without any fail.
4. The parties are directed to appear before learned District Judge, Sialkot on 27.02.2017, who will entrust the main suit file to a Court of competent jurisdiction for further proceedings.