SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIQUE SHAH J. Petitioner through instant civil revision has challenged the validity of judgement and decree passed by learned appeal Court dated: 04.05.2010, vide which appeal of the respondents was allowed and judgment and decree dated: 15.06.2009 passed by the learned trial Court was set-aside by decreeing the suit of the respondent.
2. Brief facts leading to the instant revision petition are that respondent has brought a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession against petitioners The petitioners/defendants were summoned, who appeared and contested the said suit by submitting written statement. From divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and parties were directed to produce their respective evidence. Patwari Halqa appeared as PW-1, who brought on record Fard Jumabadni for the year 2000/2001 in respect of Khasa No. 806 and 807, and respondent/plaintif f himself appeared and recorded his statement as PW-2, whereas, the defense of petitioners/defendants were struck off under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC and thereafter , learned trial Court dismissed the suit of respondent/plaintif f vide judgment dated: 15.06.2009, against which the respondent preferred an appeal before learned appeal Court, which was accepted vide judgment dated: 04.05.2010, hence, the instant revision petition.
3. Record in the light of arguments would reveal that the respondent/plaintif f has challenged the validity of mutation 5824 attested on 18.05.1993 which was attested on the strength of general power of attorney No. 1606 registered on 28.11.1992 on the ground that neither he issued any general power of attorney in favour of petitioner/defendant No. 2 nor he ever consented for the attestation of mutation No. 5824 attested on 18.05.1993, therefore, both are illegal being result of fraud committed by petitioner/defendant No. 2.
4. In support of his contention, the respo ndent recorded statement of PW-1 Paiwari Halqa, who only brought on record copy of Jumabandi for the year 2000-2001 in respect of Khas ra No. 806-807 (Ex PW-1/1), he recorded his statement as PW-2, however , neither he has brought on record copy of the mutation nor he produced general power of attorney through registrar office. Plaintif f/respondent has challenged both the general power of attorney as well as mutation on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation, however , he could not produce any evidence in respect of said fraud allegedly committed by the petitioner No. 2. It is also worth to mention here that relationship between the petitioner No.1 and that of respondent was of husband and wife. Apart from above, by now it is well settled that burden of proof lies on the person who challenges the validity of a docu ment on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation. Reliance is placed on 2010 SCMR 1351 .
5. Moreover , it is well settled that plaintif f is to prove and establish his case on the strength of his own evidence and he cannot get any benefit from the short comings and weakness of the case of the defendant.
6. In view of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court reached at the conclusion that findings of the learned appeal Court are illegal and against the material available on case file, therefore, are liable to be set-aside. Hence, by allowing the instant petition, the impugned judgment dated: 04.05.2010 of learned appeal Court is set-aside by restoring the findings of learned trial Court.