SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J. Succinctly, the respondents Nos.1 to 8 instituted a suit for partition of the disputed residential property, detailed in the head-note of the plaint by contending that the same was owned by Mian Elahi Bukhsh, predecessor in interest of the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 and present respondent No.9/defendant No. 1. The present petitioner was initially not arrayed as defendant, but later on, she was impleaded as defendant. The defendant No.1/respondent No.9 submitted written statement wherein he controverted the averments of the plaint and contended that half portion of the disputed house was given to his wife by his father, so the same would be excluded from the partition proceedings. Meanwhile, on 25.06.1995, Hafiz Muhammad Ishaque (respondent No.1-a) made a statement before the learned trial Court that he was not in knowledge of the fact of transfer of half portion of the house as dower in favour of the present petitioner. The present petitioner subsequently adopted the written statement filed by her husband/respondent No.9/defendant No.1 as allegedly it was meeting with the requirements of the written statement to be filed by the petitioner, in this respect statement of learned counsel for the petitioner was recorded on 21.0411996. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and evidence of the parties was recorded. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.1999 decreed the suit with regards to the whole of property. The present petitioner preferred an appeal, which was accepted on 09.02.2000 with the observation that the decree dated 29.06.1999 be treated as preliminary instead of final and further proceedings be carried out and case was remanded to the learned trial Court. In post remand proceedings, the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.2001 decreed the suit to the extent of half share in the disputed house. Appeal preferred by the respondents Nos.1 to 8 was allowed on 14.02.2002 with concurrence and matter was remanded with direction to proceed with the lis as per direction of the learned appellate Court dated 09.02.2000. After remand, the petitioner moved a application for adducing additional evidence on 26.02.2002 but the said application was dismissed on 16.05.2002 and the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 12.06.2002 passed preliminary decree in favour of the respondents Nos.1 to 8 in respect of whole of the property. The petitioner assailed the same by filing an appeal and during pendency of the appeal filed an application for producing additional evidence, but the learned appellate Court dismissed the said application on 26.07.2002 and also dismissed the appeal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 04.09.2002; hence, the instant civil revision.
2. Heard.
3. Rule 15 of Order VI, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides:-..
'15. Verification of pleadings.---
(1) Save as otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, every pleading shall be verified on oath or solemn affirmation at the foot by the party or by one of the parties pleading or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference to the numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what he verifies of his own knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true.
The verification shall be signed by the person making it and shall state the date on which and the place at which it was signed.'
Clause 4 of Chapter I, Part-C of Volume 1 of the high Court Rules and Orders provides that:- '4. Signing and verification.-- The plaint must be signed by the plaintiff, or, if by reason of absence or other good cause the plaintiff is unable to sign it, by his duly authorized agent. It must also be signed by the plaintiff's pleader (if any) and be verified by the plaintiff, or by some other person proved to the satisfaction of the Court to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
The personal attendance of the plaintiff in Court for the purpose of verification is unnecessary. The verification must, however, be signed by the person making it.'
Apart from the above provisions of law, Rule 2 of Order X, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is also relevant, for the purpose of the instant case, which reads:-- '2. Oral examination of the party or companion of party. ---At the first hearing of the suit, or at any subsequent hearing, any party appearing in person or present in Court, or any person able to answer any material question relating to the suit by whom such party or his pleader is accompanied, shall be examined orally by the Court; and the Court may, if it thinks fit, put in the course of such examination questions suggested by either party.'
A bare reading of the above provision of law makes it vivid that a person verifies the pleadings on oath or on solemn affirmation; however, such omission is mere a defect in procedure and same can be rectified at any stage of the proceedings; reliance is placed on a judgment handed down by a Division Bench of this Court reported as Messrs Aziz Flour Mills and 2 others v. The Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (1990 CLC 1473-Lahore) and Fazal-Ur-Rehman and 2 others v.
Begum Sughra Hague (2000 MLD 562-Lahore), Wherein it was held that:-- The provisions contained in Order VI, Rules 14 and 15, C. P. C. with regard to signing and verification of plaint are mere matters of procedure and if plaint is not properly signed or verified but is admitted and entered in the register of suits, it does not cease to be a plaint and the suit cannot be said not to have been instituted merely because of the existence of mere defect or irregularities in the matter of signing and verification of plaint. If defects in regard to the signature, verification or presentation of the plaint are cured on a day subsequent to the date of filing the suit, the date of institution of the plaint is not changed to subsequent date.'
In the present case, the petitioner relied upon and adopted the written statement submitted by the defendant No.1/respondent No.9/her husband as it was purportedly meeting with the requirements of the defence to be taken by the petitioner. However, when she neither submitted written statement, which is verified on oath, nor appeared in the witness box so as to depose on oath in support of her version, the learned Courts below have rightly concluded that the petitioner has failed to prove her case by leading unimpeachable evidence because the Nikahnama does not bear signatures of Mian Elahi Bukhsh in the relevant column and he only signed the Nikahnama as a witness for appointment of attorney of the groom. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below on this point are upto the dexterity as the same are result of proper appreciation of evidence on record, which are maintained and upheld.
4. In addition to the above, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court germane to entire disputed property and the claim of the petitioner was declined vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.1999. The said decree was assailed by the present petitioner in appeal and the learned appellate Court, keeping the findings recorded by the learned trial Court intact, vide judgment dated 09.02.2000 observed that 'the impugned judgment to the extent of issue No.6 is hereby set aside with the direction to the learned trial court to amend the judgment dated 29-6-1999 with the change in the relief only to the extent of treating the impugned judgment as preliminary and adopt the procedure of partition by appointing a local commission and thereafter proceed quite in accordance with law. Meaning thereby the decree passed by the learned trial Court was ordered to be treated as preliminary instead of final, whereas the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, as stated above, were kept intact. However, the learned trial Court misapprehended and misconceived the judgment dated 09.02.2000 passed by the learned appellate Court and instead of treating the decree dated 29.06.1999 as preliminary decree again passed decree excluding half portion of the disputed property allegedly given to the petitioner as dower vide judgment and decree dated 14.02.2001 out in actual the decree dated 29.06.1999 had attained finality. So much so, when the respondents Nos.1 to 8 preferred an appeal against the decree dated 14.02.2001 passed by the learned trial Court, the learned counsel for the parties agreed by recording their statement that the learned trial Court committed illegality, 'so with concurrence the decree dated 14.02.2001 was set aside by accepting the appeal with the direction to proceed with the matter according to law and procedure as per direction of the appellate Court dated 09.02.2000. The signature of the learned counsel for the parties were also obtained on the margin of order sheet in this regard. For ready reference, the order dated 14.02.2002 is reproduced:-- 14-2-2002.
Present: Counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the parties agreed that the learned trial court has committed illegality for no obeying the order dated 19.2.2000 of the appellate court, hence, the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.2.2001 of the learned trial court be set aside with the direction that the learned trial court should firstly comply with the order of the appellate court dated 09.02.2000 and proceed according to law and procedure.
R.O. and A.C.
Dated: 14.2.2002. Addl. District Judge, Jampur'
Presence: As before.
In view of the statements of learned counsel for the parties the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 14.2.2001 is set aside and the suit is hereby remanded to the learned trial court after accepting this appeal with no order as to cost with the direction to proceed according to law and procedure as per direction of the appellate court dated 09.2.2000.
2. This order will not prejudice the rights of the parties if challenged further in the appellate court.
3. Parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 26.02.2001. All the record of this court be consigned and that of learned lower court be sent back immediately.
Announced 14.2.2002 Addl. District Judge, Jampur'
In this view of the matter, the petitioner's side has given the consent to proceed with the matter as per direction issued by the learned appellate Court vide judgment dated 09.02.2000 and now she cannot take a U-turn or other stance, being left with no remedy except to accept the consequences of the same. Even otherwise, the decree dated 29.06.1999 had attained finality after passing of the judgment dated 09.02.2000 by the learned appellate Court wherein findings recorded by the learned trial Court were maintained and said decree was ordered to be treated as preliminary instead of final, because the said judgment dated 09.02.2000 was not further challenged by the petitioner. No illegality and irregularity has been committed by the learned Courts below while passing the impugned judgments and decrees warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory revisional jurisdiction, which otherwise has a limited scope.
5. Apart from the above, it is a settled proposition of law that concurrent findings, on facts, recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be disturbed when the same do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous in exercise of revisional jurisdiction as has been held in Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others (2017 SCMR 679), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469) and Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others (2014 SCMR 161).
6. Epitome of the discussion above is that the revision petition in hand being meritless comes to naught; hence, the same stands dismissed. No order as to the costs.