Ch. Muhammad Masood Jahangir , J. The petitioner & respondent (since deceased and represented through LRs) were brothers inter se. The former was permanently residing in America, whereas the latter along with his family was living in Pakistan. The respondent had an area 54Kanals 18Marlas against his name. The petitioner offered his brother and the family to settle them in America subject to transfer of said area to him. The respondent while relying upon his words vide registered instrument dated 05.12.1984 fulfilled his desire, but petitioner could not manage their immigration, thus the respondent demanded for return of his property . In respond the petitioner on 02.01.1992 collegially executed agreement dated 02.01.1992 (Exh.P1) for alienation of four acres (suit property) in his favour , however , subsequently no instrument to honour the same was executed, compelling the respondent to file suit for its specific performance. The petitioner through his written statement specifically disputed the execution as well as genuineness thereof. During trial, the respondent/plaintif f examined the marginal witnesses (PW1 & PW2), stamp vendor (PW3) as well as scribe (PW4) and himself appeared as PW5 to prove the due execution of Exh.P1. This quantitative & qualitative evidence was enough to shift the onus toward the executant/petitioner/defendant, but in spite of availing number of chances & cons uming years neither he himself appeared in the witness-box nor produced a single witness, forcing the learned Civil Court to take off his such right by invoking penal consequences of order XVII rule 3 of the Code, 1908 on 18.10. 2003. It was hard fact that as a last hope during suit proceedings, the petitioner/defendant made application for comparison of his alleged disputed signatures available on the agreement (Exh.P1). As per his hope, the relevant documents were referred to Forensic Science Laboratory , but a hostile report was received from the Expert. The said movement of the petitioner itself further established the genuineness of his signatures, thus after failure on scientific side as well, there left nothing in the defence grafted by the petitioner . Having solid, consistent & un-rebutted evidence on file, the learned Trial Court was left with no other option except to decree the suit vide judgment dated 27.10.2003. For said history there existed no merit in appeal, which was dismissed as well on 13.04.2005, hence, instant petition.
2. Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid, ASC on behalf of petitioner argued that an application under Order XVIII of Code ibid was made by his client before the learned Civil Court for recording his statement, but it was not decided, as such, per case law reported as Muhammad Umer versus Muhammad Qasim and another (1991 SCMR 1232 ) & Mst. Imtiaz Begum versus Mst. Sultan Jan and others (2008 SCMR 1259 ) suit requires to be remanded is not well founded. No doubt said application, in original, is available on suit file, but neither there is any mention in interlocutory orders that it was ever filed nor it bore seal as well as signature of the then learned Judicial Officer seized of the lis. It was matter of record as well that neith er during trial proceedings, it was either pressed or the indulgence of the said Court invited nor in the RFA preferred against the final decree any specific ground was raised before the learned District Court, thus at this stage no new ground could be agitated. The above cited judgments being distinguished on particular facts cannot be applied in this case. Even otherwise each case, as per settled theory , has to be dealt with independently .
3. Syed Kaleem, while referring another case law reported as M/s. Rashid & Company versus Punjab Province & another (NLR 1995 CLJ 689) emphasized that Exh.P1 having been scribed on undervalued stamp paper was required to be impounded, which formality though performed by referring the matter to the Collector concerned, yet its real value was not ascertained, therefore, Exh.P1 could not be read in evidence, whereas the Courts below erred in law while relying upon the same is also fallacious. The interlocutory order dated 08.02.1996, whereby learned Trial Court impounded Exh.P1, was not only challenged by filing Civil Revision, rather through Writ Petition before the learned District as well as this Court respectively , but without any success to that effect. It is well established up till now that once an interi m order is assailed through available proper remedy and affirmed, then it cannot be thrashed subsequently even in RFA. See Ch. Zulfiqar Ali Vs. Mian Akhtar Islam and Mian Bashir Ahmed (PLD 1967 SC 418), Baqa Muhammad Vs. Muhammad Nawaz and others (PLD 1985 Lahore 476) and Lal Khan and others Vs. Khizar Hayat and others (1994 SCMR 351). Now its reopening was neither warranted nor permissible. Even then, obvious objec t of section 35 of Stamp Act, 1899 is not to abrogate the document, rather this provision is aimed to have a check on evasion of revenue. There is no cavil that document even under value or without impounding once admitted in evidence, neither it could be de-exhibited nor ignored or discarded for said lapse. This proposition has already been clinched by this as well as apex Court in the case law reported as Union Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. Vs. Hafiz Muhammad Sadique (PLD 1978 SC 279) & Muhammad Ashiq Vs. Niaz Ahmed (PLD 2004 Lahore 95). The rational of these judgments is that if a document was admitted in evidence, howsoever erroneously , its admissibility cannot be disputed at any subsequent stage.
4. It is matter of record that although incomplete civil revision against concurrent decrees was initially filed well within time on 15.06.2005 against Diary No.1008 and to remove objection (s) raised by the office of this Court the file was received back on 05.07.2005, but surprisingly it was re-filed after almost seven years on 02.05.2012 against Diary No.43601. No doubt at this juncture C.M.No.2-C of 2012 u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 was also appended, but without specifically explaining delay of each and every day in this behalf. The emphasis of learned counsel for petitioner that his client was living abroad and never intimated about removal of office objection(s) is not plausible, because the Civil Revision was originally preferred by the petitioner through his Special Attorney as vivid from the power of attorney executed in favour of his learned counsel, therefore, the pretend regarding absence of civil revisioner was no more available.
5. An additional drastic aspect of the case of the petitioner would be that the impugned decrees passed in suit of respondent were brought before the learned Executing Court for its satisfaction, which in due process of law stood already satisfied through attestation of sale deed No.9406 dated 15.12.2005 and sanction of mutation No.2020 dated 27.09.2006. It is again not denied that learned Executing Court after realization of the decrees has also consigned the file of execution petition to the record room and despite of the fact that all these referred documents were brought on record by respondent through C.M.No.1-C of 2020 on 30.06.2020, but till today these proceedings were not assailed, which is enough to assume that petitioner has waived his grouse, thus principle of acquiescence in all four corner is applicable.
6. Mr. Kaleem Khurshid, Advocate for the petitioner having nothing at his end to argue the matter on merits of the case just tried to raise technical ground, which either had already been culminated before the learned Courts below or not agitated at proper time there. The concurrent findings of the learned lower fora being based on reasoning as per available evidence & subject on the law require no interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, the scope whereof is limited. The petitioner having no merit or evidence at his end with ulterior motive continued this litigation, which caused consumption of precious time of the Courts as well, therefore, this petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.100,000/-(Rupees one lac only).