This revision petition is directed against the judgment/order dated 05.05.2014 passed by an Additional District Judge Kabirwala, whereby he reversed and overturned the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kabirwala.
2. Shortly stated, Haji Rabnawaz passed away on 10.06.2013. He was survive d by the parties to the revision petition. To be explicit, Mst. Naseem Akhtar , the petitioner is the daughter of the deceased, while Ghulam Qasim and Mst. Nagina Firdous, Respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein are his son and daughter , respectively . Upon his demise, Ghulam Qasim, Respondent No. 1 herein applied for the grant of succession certificate, claiming that the deceased was maintaining two accounts with Dubai Islamic Bank, Kabirwala Branch, District Khanewal. In the aforesaid application, he arrayed Mst. Naseem Akhtar , Mst. Nagina Firdous, Mst. Shamim Akhtar , Manager Dubai Islamic Bank, and public at large as respondents. Having gone through the motions, the learned Civil Judge, Kabirwala granted the succession certificate vide order dated 07.11.2013. However , he was at pains to determine the shares of each of the legal heirs of Haji Rabnawaz. The relevant portion of his order reads as under: "Shares of Account No. 0121941001
1. Petitioner , Ghulam Qasim (son of deceased Haji Rabnawaz = 2/4) Rs. 252/- of A/C. No. 0121941001 of Dubai Islamic Bank, Kabirwala Branch.
2. Respondent No. 2, Mst. Naseem Akhtar (daughter of deceased Haji Rabnawaz = 1/2) Rs. 126/- of A/C. No. 0121941001 of Dubai Islamic Bank, Kabirwala Branch.
3. Respondent No. 3, Mst. Nageena Fardose (daughter of deceased Haji Rabnawaz = 1/2) Rs. 126/- of A/C No. 0121941001 of Dubai Islamic Bank, Kabirwala branch.
Share of Account No. 0121941002
1. Petitioner , Ghulam Qasim (son of deceased Haji Rabnawaz =2/4) Rs. 892844/- of A/C.No. 0121941002 of Dubai Islamic Bank, Kabirwala Branch.
2. Respondent No. 2, Naseem Akhtar (daughter of deceased Haji Rabnawaz =1/2) Rs. 446422/- of A/C. No. 0121941002 of Dubai Islamic Bank, Kabirwala Branch.
3. Respondent No. 3, Mst. Nageena Fardose (daughter of deceased Haji Rabnawaz =1/2) Rs. 446422/- of A/C.No. 0121941002 of Dubai Islamic Bank, Kabirwala Branch.
3. As it is, the present petitioner filed an application seeking to recall the aforesaid order dated 07.11.2013 on the grounds that she was not served with any notice regarding the filing of the applica tion for the grant of succession certificate and that Haji Rabnawaz deceas ed had obtained a loan of Rs. 1200000/-from her and issued a cheque to her bearing No. 0524692 dated 16.06.2013 for a sum of Rs. 1200000/- with the intent to liquidate his liability .
Allegedly , this cheque was of. Account No. 0121941002 to be drawn on Dubai Islamic Bank, Mauza Malahpur Branch, Khanewal. It goes without saying that notices were issued to the respondents. They prayed for the dismissal of the aforesaid order . However , the learned Civil Judge seized with the application allowed the same, modifying his earlier order dated 07.11.2013. To be exact, in the latter order dated 12.02.2014, he arrived at the following conclusions: "In the light of above discussion, application for the petitioner to the extent of Accou nt No. 0121941001 of Rs. 505/- is hereby rejected and application to the extent of Account No. 0121941002 of Rs. 1200000/- is hereby accepted .
Regarding the remaining amount of Rs. 585689/- petitioner and respondents are entitled to the remaining amount according to their shares."
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 12.02.2014, the respondents preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Khanewal. Ultimately , the appeal came on the file of an Additional District Judge, Kabirwala, who allowed the same vide judgment/ord er dated 05.05.2014. Dissatisfied as the petitioner is with the aforesaid order , she has filed this revision petition.
5. In support of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from filing an application seeking to recall/modify the order granting succes sion certificate, the petitioner has also filed a civil suit for declaration titled "Mst. Naseem Akhtar and another v. General Manager , Dubai Islamic Bank and two others ", in which she reiterated the facts. Her suit is pending adjudication before a learned Civil Judge, Multan. It is stressed by him that if the impugned order dated 05.05.2014 passed by the learned appellate Court was not set aside and the respondents succeeded in withdrawing the amount of Rs. 1200000/- from the account in question maintained by Haji Rabnawaz deceased, the suit of the petitioner would be rendered infructuous. Lastly , it has been argued that the proceedings under the Successions Act, 1925 are summary in nature, and in those proceedings, other disputes relating to the legacy of the deceased can not be determined. Therefore, in order to keep the balance, it would be expedient and in order to restore the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kabirwala by which he had modified his original order dated 07.11.2013. To buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance upon the case law reported as 1987 CLC 262 ; 2013 CLC 406 , 2002 SCMR 1544 and 1992 CLC 2515 .
6. Conversely , learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. He has vehemently argued that the succession certificate was issued to the respondents, subject to their furnishing surety bonds equivalent to the amount in question. Therefore, there was no justification to make a review of the original order passed by the learned Civil Court. It has also been urged by him that looking at the date of the disputed cheque, on the basis whereof the petitioner has filed a suit for declaration and also applied for the cancellation or modification of the succession certificate and the date of the death of Rabnawaz, the fraudulent nature of the claim of the petitioner is too obvious to be ignored. According to him, the learned appellate Court rightly interfered with the modifying order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kabirwala. Finally , it has been strenuously argued by him that to restrain the respondents from getting their respective shares from the legacy of the deceased is tantamount to denying any relief to them and virtually depriving them of their sharia shares.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record with their assistance.
8. There can not be two opinions that the proceedings conducted under the Succes sions Act, 1925 are summary in nature. The Court concerned is not supposed to enter into contentious issues and complex questions of facts and law that fall within the domain of a fully-fledged trial, in which parties are at liberty to adduce evidence to their entire satisfaction. It is too early to give a determinative finding as to whether the claim made by the petitioner in relation to the disputed cheque allegedly made out and issued by Rab Nawaz deceased is false or true. It bears repeating that the parties to the revision petition would have to go the whole hog for this purpose. I am of the considered opinion that the learned Civil Judge exercised his jurisdiction prudently and in accordance with law by modifying his original order dated 07.11.2013. If the petitioner succeeds in proving her claim, and meanwhile, the respondents are allowed to withdraw the disputed amount, the petitioner would be left to chase the shadows. For all practical purposes, her suit would be rendered infructuous. In the circumstance s, the impugned order/judgment dated 05.05.2014, which is bereft of reasons, is not sustainable. Consequently , the order dated 05.05.2014 passed by the appellate Court is hereby set aside, while restoring that of 12.02.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kabirwala.
9. Given the nature of the controversy between the parties, Senior Civil Jude, Multan shall strive to conclude the trial of the suit titled "Mst. Naseem Akhtar and another v. General Manager Dubai Islamic Bank and two others " within the shortest possible time, preferably within the next nine months or so.