The petitioners/defendants assailed judgments and decrees dated 31st December, 2014 and 18th March, 2016 (impugned judgments and decrees) passed by Civil Judge, Ziarat and Additional District Judge, Ziarat (trial and appellate Courts), whereby the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed and appeal filed by the petitioners/defendants against the same was dismissed.
2. Precise facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs filed amended suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation entries, transfer of mutation entries, partition and permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants in the Court of Civil Judge, Ziarat with the following prayer:-- a. To declare that the plaintiffs have also shares in the Shamilat land, Bearing Khasra No. 667 situated at Mohal Mouza Kan Bungala, Tappa Kach, Tehsil and District Ziarat, as the same is situated near the settled land of plaintiffs under Khasra Nos. 653, 663, 665, 671, 672, 803, 678, 804, 800, 508 (seven Qitas) measuring 10 rods 16 poles, Mutation No. 53 alongwith shares of water situated at Mohal and Mouza Kan Bungala, Tappa Kach Tehsil and District Ziarat; b. To declare that the official defendants illegally and unlawfully mutated the Shamilat land in question in favour of Defendants No. 1 to 7 in Revenue record without giving due shares of the plaintiffs; c. To declare that the impugned Mutation No. 119 dated 02.07.2001 in respect of Shamilat land in question having been carried out in favour of Defendants No. 1 to 7 by official defendants without any lawful authority and the same may kindly be declared null and void. d. Directing the official defendants to cancel the impugned Mutation No. 119 dated 02.07.2001 being null and void; e. Directing the official defendants to partition and mutate the Shamilat land in question in favour of all the patidaran including the plaintiffs in revenue record and give the shares of each and every share holders; - f. Permanently restraining the defendants from selling, alienating, transferring, changing the Shamilat land in question; g. Any other relief, which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded; h. Cost of the suit may also be awarded."
3. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit on legal as well as factual grounds and prayed for dismissal of the suit. The Respondents/Defendants No. 10 to 78 also filed their joint written statement and prayed for decree of the suit.
4. The trial Court out of the pleadings of the parties framed issues which both the parties led their respective pro and contra evidence. Initially on 12th November, 2007 the suit of the respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed being not maintainable. Against the judgment and decree dated 12th November, 2007 of Civil Judge, Ziarat two appeals Bearing No, 90 of 2007 and 03 of 2008 were filed before Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta, who vide order dated 29th May, 2008 dismissed appeal No. 90 of 2007 being not maintainable and devoid of merit, whereas Appeal No. 03 of 2008 was allowed, the judgment and decree dated 12th November, 2007 was set aside and matter was remanded to the trial Court with direction to dispose of the suit afresh in accordance with the observations made by the this Court within a specific period of two months. After remand the parties to the lis produced their evidence. On conclusion the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31 December, 2014 decreed the suit of the respondents /plaintiffs.
Being aggrieved the petitioners/ defendants preferred appeal before Additional District Judge, Ziarat, who vide judgment and decree dated 18th March, 2016 dismissed the appeal, hence this revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants stated that the judgments and decrees of Courts below are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence. Both the Courts below have failed to consider the documentary and oral evidence without any justification. It is settled proposition of law that the burden of proof lies on respondents/plaintiffs. The respondents/plaintiffs have failed to produce convincing evidence. The documents were not exhibited in accordance with law. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below are non-speaking. The concurrent findings are not sacrosanct. Where the concurrent findings are illegal and based on hypothesis this Court has power to set aside the same,
6. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently opposed the contention of the petitioners/defendants by stating that the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are based on sound reasoning. The petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 have failed to produce any evidence regarding disputed mutation. The disputed land is Shamilat. The petitioners/defendants with the collaboration of revenue authorities transferred it to their names in the record of right without any justification.
7. Heard and perused the record minutely with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties.
The record transpires that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration, cancellation of mutation entries, transfer of mutation entries, partition and permanent injunction before the trial Court alleging therein that the father of the respondents/plaintiffs had purchased land Bearing Khasra Nos. 653, 663, 665, 671, 803, 678, 804, 800, 508, measuring 10 rods 16 poles vide Mutation No. 53 alongwith share of water and Shamilat situated at Mouza Kan Bungala Tappa Kach Ziarat from Dil Aram in 1968. The land of shamilat Khasra No. 667 was barren. The petitioner/Defendants No. 1 to 7 with collusion of revenue authorities unlawfully transferred the Shamilat under Khasra No 667 in their names vide Mutation No. 119 in the year 1995. The respondents/ plaintiffs in support of their contention produced two witnesses and got recorded the statement of their attorney who exhibited documents i.e. Courts judgments, official record without objection from petitioners/ defendants side.
8. The record transpires that the respondents/plaintiffs challenged Mutation No. 119 by way of filing appeal before Collector Ziarat. The Collector Ziarat vide order dated 10th March, 1997 cancelled the Mutation No. 118.
9. The Petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 challenged the order of Collector before Commissioner Sibi Division which was rejected vide order dated 18th July, 1998.
10, The Petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 assailed both the orders of Collector Mend and Commissioner Sibi Division before Member Board of Revenue Baloohistan Quetta, which too was dismissed vide order dated 15th May, 1899. The relevant pare reads as under: "That the mutation entry may be entered afresh by giving a prior notice to all the "PATIDARAN". The orders dated 10.03.1997 and 18.07.1998 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Commissioner, Sibi respectively are upheld."
11. During pendency of above referred proceeding before revenue hierarchy previously the father of respondents/plaintiffs filed suit against the Petitioners/Defendants No, 1 to 7. Meanwhile one Haji Sattar filed application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impalement which was allowed, as such the respondents/plaintiffs filed amended suit. The newly impleaded respondents/defendants filed application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC which was accepted. The suit was rejected vide order dated 5th September, 2000. The impugned order was assailed by defendant Abdul Khaliq before appellate Court. The Additional District Judge-IV, Quetta decided the appeal vide urder dated 19th December, 2000. Said Abdul Khaliq filed Civil Revision No. 48 of 2001 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn.
12. The respondents/plaintiffs assailed orders of revenue hierarchy before this Court in CP No, 426 of 1999 which was accepted. The relevant para reads as under "Accordingly the order of MBA is rectified to the /Mowing effect.
"Let the concerned authority of Revenue Department enter/attest the disputed entries afresh after giving notice to all the patidaran."
As a consequence whereof the order of Deputy Commissioner Ziarat dated 10th March, 1997 and Commissioner Sibi dated 18th July, 1998 in pursuance whereof the disputed entries were maintained is set aside."
13. On the basis of order passed by this Court in CP No. 426 of 1999 the plaintiffs, defendants and others patidaran approached Deputy Commissioner Ziarat. The Deputy Commissioner restored Mutation No. 119 dated 12' March, 1995 in favour of Petitioner/Defendants No. 1 to 7 vide order dated 2nd July, 2001. The respondents/plaintiffs assailed order dated 2nd July, 2001 before Executive District Officer Ziarat which was dismissed vide order 15" May, 2002. The respondents/plaintiffs challenged both the orders before Chairman Revenue Tribunal-I, Quetta, which was not accepted vide order dated 7th June, 2003. The respondents/plaintiffs approached Member Board of Revenue Quetta which was accepted vide order dated 13th April, 2004, which reads as under: "Parties counsels present. Arguments heard. Record also perused the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan dated 22.6.1999 is quite clear. E.D.O (Revenue) Ziarat is directed to implement the decision made by Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan dated 22.6.1999. Copy of judgment of Member-I1 and Hon'ble High Court of Balochistan enclosed for your guidance."
14. Despite clear direction by this Court in CP No. 426 of 1999 and order of MBR dated 13.4.2004 the E.D.O (Revenue) restored mutation/transfer No. 119 in respect of Khasra No. 667 in the names of petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7.
15. The respondents/plaintiffs filed suit. The Petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 contested the suit. The parties led evidence. The trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 before appellate Court was dismissed.
16. The record transpires that the suit property bearing Khasra No. 667 was mutated as Shamilat land. Subsequently the petitioners transferred it vide Mutation No. 119 in their names. Admittedly the father of respondents/plaintiffs purchased the land having seven khasra numbers from one Dil Aram and became owner of the property. It is settled principle that the Shamilat land do not belong to one land owner rather the land owner of the respective area. There was no valid ground for transfer of the Shamilat land bearing Khasra No. 667 in the names of petitioners. This Court in CP No. 426 of 1999 clearly directed the revenue department to attest the disputed entries afresh after giving notices to all the patidaran. The petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 failed to produce any proceeding conducted by revenue authority in regard of disputed khasra number.
17. No doubt the respondents/plaintiffs are under legal obligation to prove the case on the strength of their own evidence unless the defendants admit the claim of plaintiffs. As per Ex: P/3 Khasra No. 667 entered in the record of right as Shamilat land. The question is how the petitioners are alone owners of the Shamilat land. The burden was on the petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 to prove this aspect but they failed to produce other documentary or oral evidence to substantiate their contention.
18. It is settled proposition of law that presumption of truth attach to certified copy of official record, Court proceedings, judgments. The burden was/is on the party who claimed such document. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioners/ Defendants No. 1 to 7 have not disputed the document produced by the respondents/plaintiffs. Even at the time of exhibition of document the petitioners/Defendants No. 1 to 7 have not objected meaning thereby that the document exhibited without objection. Reliance is placed on his Mst. Rehmat Bibi through legal heirs v. Haji Allah Dewaya, 2009 CLC 390, in which it was held: "13. Perusal of the record would reveal that the plaintiffs/respondents had produced the scribe of the deed copy Exh.P.W.1/1 as well as marginal witnesses of the deed namely Fazal-e-Qadir, Deed Writer, and Haji Mukhtiar Hussain P.W.4. They have proved the contents of the dower deed, the same was produced before the Court and photo copy was exhibited without any objection by defendants/petitioners. When a document is admitted in evidence without objection and the same is placed on record then no subsequent objection can be raised to its admissibility of a document at a later stage as held in National Bank of Pakistan, Bannu Branch through its Manager v. Syed Mir 1987 CLC page 1103."
19. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the documents have not been exhibited in accordance with law has no force. The attorney of the plaintiffs exhibited the documents in his deposition; pertain to Courts judgment and official record. Articles 90 to 95, 99 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 (Order 1984) are obligatory, while Articles 96 to 98, 129(g) of the Order, 1984 are permissive in nature. Under Article 90 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 the presumption attached to the certified copies of documents which reads as under: "Article 90. Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies.
(1) The Court shall presume every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government to be genuine: Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf.
(2) The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be singed or certified held when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such document."
In case Muhammad Saeed and others (PLD 2018 Peshawar 5) it was held: "The' presumption mentioned in Articles 90 to 96 and 99 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are obligatory where as presumption mentioned under Articles 98 to 98, 100 and 129 are permissive in nature and the Court may or may not raise a presumption."
Reliance is also placed on case Muhammad Ramzan v. The State, PLD 2007 Karachi-l. It was held therein; "23. Under the Order, 1984 some presumptions are "obligatory", in the sense that the Court is bound to raise them Such presumptions are mentioned in Articles 90 to 95 and Article 99.
Whereas some presumptions merely "permissive" in the sense that the Court/ may or may not raise them. Such presumptions are mentioned under Articles 96 to 98, 100 and 129. The presumptions mentioned in Articles 90 to 100 and 129 are not conclusive but rebuttable. There are some presumptions, which are irrebuttable. They are indicated in the Order, 1984 by the expression "conclusive proof No evidence can be allowed It to between in rebuttal of such presumptions. They are available in Articles 55 and 128."
90, Under Article 91 of the Order 1084 presumption attached to document produced as record or evidence, which reads as wider: "91, Presumption as to document produced as record of evidence. Whenever any document- produced before any Court purporting to be a record or memorandum of the evidenced, or of any part of the evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding or before any officer authorized by law to take such evidence or to be a statement or confession by any prisoner or accused person, taken in accordance with law, and purporting to be signed by any judge or Magistrate or by any such officer as aforesaid, the Court shall presume: That the document is genuine; that any statement as to the circumstances under which it was taken purporting to be made by the person singing it, are true, and that such evidence, statement or confession was duly taken."
21. The judgment record got presumption of its correctness and credibility is attached to the proceeding before judicial forum. Strong and unimpeachable evidence is required to rebut the presumption which is lacking in the case in hand. Reliance is placed on case Ghulam Muhammad v. Qadir Khan PLD 1983 SC 68. In Muhammad Ramzan's case (2002 SCMR 1336) it was categorically held: "--Strong presumption of correctness and sanctity of high order is always attached to judicial proceedings.--"
Mere bald assertion without any documentary proof cannot rebut the judicial proceeding.
22. The scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court is supervisory in nature. The jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be invoked against the conclusion of law or fact which do not in any way affect the jurisdiction of the Court no matter however erroneous, wrong or perverse. The decision might be unless the decision evolves the matter of jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed on case Muhammad Sarwar v Hashmal Khan, PLD 2022 SC 13, wherein it was held: "6. It is well settled exposition of law, deducible from plethora of dictums laid down by superior Courts that Section 115, C.P.C. empowers and mete out the High Court to satisfy and reassure itself that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; the case is one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and in exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law or with material irregularity or by committing some error of procedure in the course of the trial which affected the ultimate decision. If the High Court is satisfied that aforesaid principles have not been unheeded or disregarded by the Courts below, it has no power to interfere in the conclusion of the subordinate Court upon questions of fact or law.
In the case of Atiq-ur- Rehman v. Muhammad Amin. (PLD 2006 SC 309), this Court held that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is confined to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence, jurisdictional error or an illegality of the nature in the judgment which may have material effect on the result of the ease or the conclusion drawn therein is perverse or contrary to the law but the interference for the mere fact that the appraisal of evidence may suggest another view of the matter is not possible in revisional jurisdiction. So far as challenge to the concurrent findings of the Courts below in the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, this Court has held in the case of Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Muhammad Jaffar Khan and others (2010 SCMR 984), that High Court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent conclusions arrived at by the Courts below while exercising power under Section 115, C.P.C. Similar view was taken in the case of Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630) that the concurrent findings of three Courts below are not opened to question at the revisional stage."
In view of above discussion the instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs and the judgments and decrees dated 31st December, 2014 and 18th March, 2016 passed by Civil Judge, Ziarat and Additional District Judge, Ziarat respectively are upheld.