RAJA SHAKEEL AHMAD, J. Petitioner being aggrieved by impugned order dated 19.11.2019, passed by learned District Judge District Ghanche in Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2019 have preferred the instant Civil Revision wherein the learned District Judge Ghanche has dismissed the petition under Order XLI, Rule 27, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C. The petitioners prayed as under: - "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting this Revision Petition, the impugned order dated 09-11-2019 passed by learned District Judge Ghanche may very kindly be set aside and may kindly allow the petition under XLI, Rule 27 read with section 151 filed by the petitioner/appellant and directed the learned trial court to proceed with the suit on merit.
2. Brief facts leading to this controversy is that the present petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration before the court of learned Senior Civil Judge Khapulu to the effect that he is the sole legal and shaire heir of his late brother Mohammad Yusuf son of Abdul Qadir and defendants/respondents are in possession of land of suit land without any legal justification and he being the nearest legal heir entitled to get the possession of his left over property. The learned trial Court after framing of issues and leading of evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing the argument pro and contra on 28/03/2019 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff being devoid of proof.
3. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Civil Judge Khapulu the Petitioner/appellant/plaintiff filed Civil 1st Appeal No. 08/2019 before' the honorable court of District Judge Ghanche against the impugned Judgment/decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge Khapulu and during pendency of appeal the petitioner/appellant filed an application under Order XLI, Rule 27 read with section 151, C.P.C. for production of a shari fatwa as additional evidence with the assertion that the said document couldn't be made part of the record mistakenly while filing the suit before the learned trial court, the document is an important document which is shari fitawa in regard to the disputed property and essential to understand the nature of the dispute and for just decision of the Lis.
4. The learned District Judge District Ghanche on 09.11.2019 after hearing the pro and contra arguments on the application disallowed the application of the petitioner/appellant and dismissed holding it devoid of merits.
5. I heard both the respective counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant/ plaintiff argued that the impugned order of learned District Judge Ghanche is totally against the law and norms of justice. The learned Court below have misconceived and misunderstood the law involved in the matter and arrived at wrong conclusion and passed the impugned order in hasty manners, hence the impugned order of the Court below is not sustainable, not maintainable and liable to set-aside. He further contended that the learned District Judge Ghanche failed to fairly and properly exercise jurisdiction, hence the order under revision is bad in the eye of law and against the principles of natural justice and liable to set aside.
He further contended that the impugned order is result of misconception of laws based on flimsy grounds and without judicial foundation is not maintainable and amounts to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/defendants opposed the contention of petitioner and pleaded that the impugned order passed by the First Appellate Court is right and correct appreciation of relevant law and record of the case, therefore, do not warrant interference in revision and may be maintained to meet the ends of justice, the instant petition not maintainable and prayed same may be dismissed.
7. I have given due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case file, the appellant/plaintiff filed the application under Order XLI, Rule 27 for the production of shari fitawa as additional evidence but copy of the same is already part of the record and the same was not exhibited during the trial of case before the trial court, this fact belies the contention of the petitioner that during the submission of the plaint before the court of the civil judge the same was mistakenly not made part of the case file, in fact the documents was made part of the case file but the same was not exhibited being a photo copy and not admissible as piece of evidence under the law. In this case the petitioner failed to produce the document in the trial court in admissible manner despite of the fact that same was in the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner. I also agree with the findings of the learned District Judge that the document which the petitioner/appellant wanted to produce in Court at appellate stage is not a piece of evidence rather a legal proposition that on the death of a person his inheritance devolved on his brother in the absence of parents and descendants, which is not dispute in the case of the plaintiff/ petitioner hence the document under consideration is not relevant documentary piece of evidence.
8. For the forgoing reasons, the findings recorded by learned District Judge District Ghanche is not open to exceptions and that too in absence of any illegality or irregularity therein.
9. As sequel to the above, instant Revision Petition No. 33/2019, and C.M. 64 of 2019, being without any substance and devoid of merit are dismissed. File.