CH. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.--- This single judgment will dispose of C.R. No. 3690/2012 and C.R.
No. 3691/2012 jointly as the .same have arisen out of consolidated judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below and common questions of law and facts arc involved therein.
In concision, the facts of the case are that Mst. Parveen Akhtar , present petitioner institu ted a two-told declaratory suit, firstly that her deceased father , Nazar Mohammad was a follower (if 'Shia' sect whose inheritance was to be devolved upon her and widow of the dece ased i.e. respondent No. 1 according to rules governed by such sect, but revenue authorities were bent upon to attest inheritance mutation of her father's legacy according to 'Hang law, who be restrained to attest the, same and secondly , that Mst. Munazza Bibi alias Perveen further alias Zareena/respondent No. 2 was not the daughter of the said deceased, therefore, she was not entitled to inherit any part of the estate of deceased. During the potency of suit of the petitioner , respondent No. 1, the admitted widow of Nazar Muhammad also filed a suit while claiming herself to be sharer in the estate of her deceased husband. She further asserted that deceased was a "Sunni" by his sect. Both the suits were consolidated and after appreciating the evidence of parties, suit of petitioner was dismissed, whereas, rival suit of respondent No. 1 was-decreed through consolidated judgment dated 12.03.2008. The petitioner by filing two separate appeals assailed the said judgment and decrees before learned Additional District Judge, Pindi Bilabial'. but could not succeed when these were dismissed through consolidated judgment and decrees dated 27.1 1.2012, hence these civil revisions:
3. Arguments heard. Record perused.
4. From the perusal of available record it appears that petitioner , who was admittedly daughter of Nazar Mohammad deceased 'brought the 'suit against three sisters, one widow and one daughter of his late father with aforenoted two versions. Prior to institution of the said suit, revenue hierarchy entered mutation No. 5269 for distribution of estate of Nazar Mohammad while considering him the follower' of "Sunni" sect and the main prayer of petitioner was to restrain the revenue hierarchy from attesting the said mutation. The petitioner to prove that Nazar Mohammad was follower of 'shia' sect herself did not appear in the witness-box to depose 'so on oath rather she examined Manzoor Ahmad, her Special Attorney as PW 1 and when learned counsel for the petitioner is faced with the situation that why the petitioner/daughter of the deceased did not appear in the witness-box to prove the same, he submitted that she was sick and illiterate lady and, therefore, she appointed her brother-in-law to make statement on her behalf by executing Special Power of Attorney (Ex. P1). The perusal of said document reveals that prior to two and half months of the statement of Special Attorney being PW 1 before the learned trial Court the power of attorney (Ex. P1) was executed by the petitioner , which means that at that relevant time, she appeared before the stamp vendor for the purchase of stamp as well as the deed writer for execution of power of attorney and thereafter before Notary Public for its notarization, but she opted not to appe ar before the learned trial Court without any valid justification. Even for the sake of arguments, if it is considered to be correct that she was not able to attend the court on account of her meagre health, then under a prayer she could be examined by a Local Commission, but the legal process was also not followed. The other excuse that she was an old illiterate lady and, therefore, could not appear in the witness-box is also not justified. This handicap was also attached to her at the time when she herself got drafted the suit and instituted the same but nothing precluded her at that point of time and when time came to depose on oath and to face the cross-examination she opted to remain away of the proceedings. A party knowing the bundle of facts herself and does not appear in the witness-box to demonstrate his stance then inference under Article 129 illustration (g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 has to be drawn against her. Reference can be placed upon "Haji Abdullah Khan and others Vs. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others"
(PLD 1959 (W .P) Peshawar 81) wherein it is observed as follows: "It is a settled law that it is the bounden duty of a party personally knowing the whole circumstances of the case to give evidence on his behalf, and to subm it to cross-examination. His non-appearance as a witness would be the strongest possible circumstances going to discredit the truth of his case."
It is also remarkable that the petitioner did not examine any of the close relative of the deceased or the Imam, who offered funeral prayer of Nazar Mohammad, whereas, in contra, the widow of Nazar Mohammad appeared as DWI, his daughter as DW2 and his sister DW3 and categorically stated that Nazar Mohammad remained "Sunni" till his death. A close friend of the deceased was also examined as DW4, who firmly supported the stance of the respondent. Even otherwise, according to prevailing law, every Muslim of Pakistan is "Sunni" by sect Until and unless it is proved otherwise. Reliance can be placed upon the judgments reported as "Mst. Sarwar Noor vs. Ali Haider and another" (2009 CLC 400) and "Sher Muhammad and others Vs. Mst. Fatima and others" (2016 MLD 185 ).
5. The respondents to negate the second stance of the petitioner brought on record copy of Birth Certificate of respondent No 2 Mst. Zareena (Ex. DO and the perusal of same reveals that she was shown to be the daughter of Nazar Mohammad. Moreover , the second document Nikah Nama of the said lady (Ex. D5) is also of much importance and the perusal of same further affirms that Mst. Zarina Bibi being daughter of Nazar Mohammad wedded Tanvir Ahmad. These documents came into existence much prior to institution of suit and also during the life span of Nazar Mohammad, who never raised any objection over the veracity of said documents. No documentary evidence to rebut Ex. D1 and Ex. D5 could be brought on the suit file, rather it is astonished to note that the witnesses of the petitioner PW I to PW3 did not utter a single word that Mst. Munazza @ Zarina Bibi was not daughter of Nazar Mohammad, so material available on suit file clearly established that respondents succeeded to prove that she was the daughter of Nazar Mohammad, whereas, petitioner failed to prove the second fold of his case. The argument of learned counsel for petitioner that Ex. D1 and Ex. D5 were not duly proved on the record by examining its author/maker and the Courts below erred in law while relying upon these is not well- founded. These documents were not under challenge of the suit and these being copies of public record could be brought on the file through statement of counsel. No doubt at the time of exhibition of Ex. Dl an objection qua its tendering was raised but no objection at the time of exhibition of Ex. P5 was raised by counsel for the petitioner . So at this stage the objection that Nikah Nama Ex. D5 could not be considered is not tenable.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment's and decrees or that these are reflective of any misreading and non-reading of evidence available on the file. The concurrent findings of facts on face of record have been eminently arrive d at by both the learned Courts below . The scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction by this Court is restricted and narrower , which is only meant for correcting errors of facts and law, if are found to have been committed by the subordinate Courts in the discharge of their judicial functions. Safe reliance can be placed on the judgments passed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan reported a "AURANGZEB through L.Rs. and others vs. MUHAMMAD JAFF AR and "another"
(2007 SCMR 236) and "BASHIR AHMED Vs. GHULAM RASOOL" (2011 SCMR 762). It is apparent on the face of record that the petitioner entangle the respondents in the baseless litigation just to deprive them of their share in the legacy of their predecessor by setting up a wrong stance out of her greed, which practice has to be reprimanded.
7. Sequel of the above discussion is that both the civil revisions being devoid of any merit are dismissed with costs of Rs. 25, 000/- in each case.