AHMAD ALI, J. The petitioner through this writ of certior ari has called in question the vires of Judgment & Order dated 24.10.2019 of the learned Addl. District Judge-V Nowshera, whereby his civil revision filed against order dated 16.03.2019 of the learned Civil Judge-VI Nowshera, was dismissed.
2. Essential facts for the decision of present writ petition are that the respondent No.1 on 24.04.2004 instituted a suit for possession through partition of a house by contending that the same was owned by her father namely Kashmir Khan wherein she was owners to the extent of her Shari share. The defendants therein contested the suit and finally a preliminary decree was passed vide Judgment dated 22.11.2008 in favour of all the stakeholder . The appeal against said decree was also dismissed on 28.04.201 1. Thereafter , application for final decree was also allowed vide Judgment dated 26.02.2016. Henceforward, the episode of application u/s 12(2) CPC began whereby the petitioner/applicant assailed the preliminary decree dated 22.11.2008 on the score that he had purchased the suit house in 1994 and since then he has been in possession of the said house. However , the learned trial Court of Civil Judge-VI Nowshera, after hearing preliminary arguments, dismissed the application vide Order dated 16.03.2016. The Civil Revision filed against order dated 16.03.2016 was also dismissed by the learned Addl.
District Judge-V , Nowshera, vide Judgment dated 24.10.2019. Thus, the petitioner has called in question the vires of concurrent findings, recorded by the two learned Courts below , through this writ petition.
3. Arguments heard and record gone through.
4. The perusal of record reveals that the petitioner flexed his muscles against the decree dated 22.11.2008 on the plea that he had purchased the suit house from Raz Khan son of Kashmir Khan through an instrument dated 28.10.1994 and possession was also delivered to him. But respondent/plaintif f concealed this important fact from the Court and succeeded in obtaining decree. This fact is evident from the record that the house in question was originally belonged to Kashmir Khan who was survived by one son Raz Khan and two daughters Shahroza and Gulraiza. Raz Khan was survived by widow Mst. Nihar Begum and a daughter Mst. Maira Begum. Present petitioner is the brother of Mst. Nihar Begum widow of Raz Khan. Thus, under the Islamic law of inheritance, for the distribution of legacy of Kashmir Khan all proper parties were impleaded in the plaint. The findings of facts, recorded by the learned two Courts below are very much reasonable and based on sound footings. The judgment of learned ADJ-V Nowshera is very much elaborated and the learned revisory Court evaluated the merits of application u/s 12(2) CPC at judicial scales from all the angles and learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgments.
5. Yet another aspect of the case is that the superstructure of the application u/s 12(2) CPC of petitioner was built- up on an unregistered document, purportedly executed in the year 1994 by one Raz Khan; and thereafter the petitioner slept over his alleged rights and made no efforts to get transfer the suit house in his name through any registered instrument or any other legal means. Even after the death of Raz Khan in the year 1996, he remained idle and he had not taken any step to enforce his alleged rights. Instead in the year 2018, after a long period of 24 years, petitioner agitated his purported rights through the present application. It means, he is trying to get himself declared as owner on the basis of application u/s 12(2) CPC in a shortcut manner . The rights of petitioner on the basis of purported document are pre-matu re and the said stale document does not provide petitioner a legal right to file present application. Even otherwise, the document dated 28.10.1994 was a compulsorily registerable documents and its non-registration has rendered the said document nullity in the eyes of law. Even for the sake of arguments the main suit is resorted, then the unregistered document is not sufficing to vest the ownership right in respect of immovable property in favou r of the petitioner/applicant as the same is hit by Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908; and the final result of suit will be again a preliminary decre e for partition of the suit house between legal heirs of Kashmir Khan. For this reason, I do not hesitate to hold that the petitioner is trying to flog a dead horse by way of a baseless & frivolous application.
6. In the premises aforesaid, I see no merit in this petition, accordingly the same is dismissed in limine with cost.