Through this civil revision, judgments and decrees dated 30.09.2019 and 26.11.2020 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha and the learned Additional District Judge, Sargodha have been assailed. By virtue of the former judgment, a suit fox declaration filed by the petitioners against the respondents has been dismissed and through the latter , the same has been upheld.
2. The facts giving rise to the present civil revision are that a suit for declaration along with consequential relief of permanent injunction was filed by the petitioners against the respondents assailing mutation of inheritance No. 2488 dated 16.11.1973 on the ground that the parties to the present litigation are collaterals of one Ijaz and on his demise the disputed mutation was sanctioned however the predecessor in interest of the petitioners namely Mst.
Hameedan Bibi was ousted from the array of successors/legal heirs of Ijaz, therefore, the said mutation is not in accordance with law. Written statements were filed by the respondents, out of whom, Respondent No. 4 filed 'conceding written statement whereas the others filed contesting written statements denying the claim of the petitioners. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, 10 issues were framed; evidence pro and contra was led whereafter through judgment and decree dated 30.09.2019 the suit was dismissed . Feeling aggrieved, petitioners preferred an appeal which also met the same fate and was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 26.11.2020, hence this petition.
3. At the outset of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has been confronted with the fact that what evidence has been produced by the petitioners to prove that Mst. Hameedan Bibi was the successor of Ijaz.
4. Replying to the above, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners produced Exh.P1 which is the Family Registration Certificate (FRC) issued by NADRA which was sufficien t to prove connection of Mst.
Hameedan Bibi with Ijaz. At this juncture, learned counsel has further been confronted with the fact that the suit was filed by the petitioners on 31.07.2010 whereas the FRC was prepared/issued on 14.10.2013, i.e. much after the filing of the suit, thus, how the said document could be relied upon. He has also been confronted with the fact that since the heirship of Mst. Hameedan Bibii was denied by the respondents, therefore, it was imperative for the petitioners to have summoned the record maintained by NADRA for proving the FRC as to whether it was issued in accordance with law however no such endeavour was made on part of the petitioners, therefore, the said document could neither be produced in evidence nor could be proved.
5. In spite of his earnest effort, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to give any plausible explanation but to highlight that since the said document was exhibited without objection thus there was no requirement for requisitioning the record.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The pivotal question, which requires determination by this Court, is as to wheth er predecessor in interest of the petitioners namely Mst. Hameedan Bibi was the successor of Ijaz. To prove this fact, petitioners produced Exh.P1
(FRC) however a bare perusal of the said document would show that it was prepared much after the filing of the suit, for which there is no explanation.: Once it has been alleged by the petitioners that they are successors of Mst.
Hameedan Bibi, they had to prima facie show that on what document they place reliance, which was also to be appended with the plaint, however , since the said document was not in existence when the suit was filed therefore the same was not relied upon.
8. In the above circumstances, it was imperative for the petitioners to have summoned the original record of NADRA in order to produce and prove the FRC however since the same has not been done thus it is violative of the dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supre me Court of Pakistan in judgment reported as Province of the Punjab through Collector , Sheikhupura and others v. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah and others [2017 SCMR 172], hence the said document cannot be read into evidence.
9. Moreover , the entries made in the record of NADRA are not conclusive proof. For reference, reliance can be placed on judgment reported as Ali Hassan @ Jamshaid v . The State [2012 SCMR 242 ].
10. Another aspect which makes the said document inadmissible in evidence is that it was produced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners before the learned trial Court in his own statement while closing the evidence of the petitioners and was not produced through any witness, hence, production of the said document through counsel is not a valid tender . For reference, reliance can be placed on judgments reported as Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khan and others [PLD 2010 SC 604] and Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v . Misri Khan [PLD 2020 SC 749 ].
11. It shall not be out of place to mention here that mere production of a document and to prove a document are two separate segments. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in judgment reported as Dawa Khan through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Tayyab [2013 SCMR 1113] has categorically held that production and proof of a document are two different segments and in case a document is produced without any objection, the same cannot be termed to be proved. The resume of the afore-noted judgment is that if a docum ent is denied by the other side, it would be necessary for the beneficiary , who is relying on the document to prove the same through independent evidence and its mere production would not mean that it has been proved.
12. In the above circumstances, since the petitioners have failed to prove the fact that Mst. Hameedan Bibi was the successor of Ijaz, therefore, the Courts below have rightly decided against the petitioners.
13. For what has been discussed above, since the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any jurisdictional defect or procedural impropriety in the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below , therefore, in view of judgments reported as Nizam-ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia ul Oamar and others [2016 SCMR 24], Iqbal Ahmed v. Managing Director Provincial Urban Development Board, N.-W .F.P, Peshawar and others [2015 SCMR 799], Mandi Hassan alias Mehdi Hussain and another v. Nazar Hussain and another [2014 SCMR 1469 ] and Haji Muhammad Din v. Muhammad Arif [PLD 2015 SC 137], Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah [PLD 1994 SC 291], no interference is called for by this Court in the concurrent findings rendered by the Court below , as a sequel to which, this petition fails and the same is dismissed in limine.