Brief facts, giving rise to the instant revision petition are as such that the petitioners instituted a suit for declaration of rights alongwith cancellation of mutations No.274 dated 06.01.1992 and 361 dated 10.03.1999, against the respondents/defendants, which was duly contested by the respondents while submitting written statement. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed issues and evidence of the parties in pro and contra was recorded. On conclusion of trial, the learned trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 08.06.2023 dismissed suit of the petitioners/plaintiffs, which culminated into filing of an appeal against the same but it was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated 22.12.2023 by the learned Addl. District Judge, concerned; hence, the instant revision petition calling into question the legality and vires of the impugned judgments and decrees.
2. Heard.
3. It is the claim of the petitioners that they being legal heirs of Mst. Aziz Bibi are entitled to inherit her share which had to be devolved upon her from her husband namely Aziz Khan alias Ishaque Khan but she was deprived of her share while entering into mutation No.274 dated 06.01.1992. As against this, it is claim of the respondents that Mst. Aziz Bibi died prior to death of Aziz Khan alias Ishaque Khan, therefore, the disputed inheritance mutation No.274 was rightly entered in their favour, because the spouses were issueless. It is notable fact that the immediate effectees i.e. father of the petitioner No.1, his uncles and aunts did not challenge the disputed mutations in their life time and the death entries of Aziz Khan alias Ishaque Khan and Mst. Aziz Bib were got incorporated by the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf in the record of the concerned department on 29.11.1991 and 04.06.1992, respectively as is evident from Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, which have also not been exhibited in the deposition of any of the witness rather the same have been brought on record in the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The said documents being disputed one ought to have been brought on record either by the petitioner(s) or any of their witnesses while appearing in the witness box on oath so as to have been subject to cross examination. Submission of such disputed documents through statement of counsel without oath cannot be appreciated and cannot be considered in evidence. Reliance is placed on Manzoor Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs. v. Misri Khan (PLD 2020 Supreme Court 749) and Mst. Akhtar Sultana v. Major Retd. Muzaffar Khan Malik through his legal heirs and others (PLD 2021 Supreme Court 715), wherein it has been held that:- `35. Keeping in view the factual position as to the absence of the requisite certificate on the said certified copies of the foreign documents and their production in evidence in statement of the counsel without providing an opportunity to the respondents to test their authenticity, it would be safe to conclude that the alleged certified copies of the foreign document (Ex.D18 to Ex.D26) tendered in evidence did not cross the legal threshold of "admissibility" and "proof", as mandated under clause (5) of Article 89 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat. .............'
Further reliance in this regard can safely be placed on judgment reported as Rustam and others v.
Jehangir (Deceased) through LRs. (2023 SCMR 730), wherein it has been held that:- `As regards the other two documents i.e. mutation No.1836 (Exh.D-9) and mutation No.1837 (Exh.D.-8), it is suffice to say that according to principle settled by this Court in the cases reported as Mst. Hameeda Begum and others v. Mst. Irshad Begum and others (2007 SCMR 996), Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence and another v. Jaffar Khan and others (PLD 2010 SC 604) and Province of the Punjab through Collector, Shikhupura and others v.
Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah and others (2017 SCMR 172) the document should be produced in the evidence by the party itself and a fair opportunity should be given to the opposite party to cross- examine the same, as such, the said two documents produced by the defendants counsel in his statement could not be taken into consideration."
4. Another aspect in this case is that the suit was instituted by Muhammad Ashraf only without any authority or power of attorney on behalf of the other plaintiffs/petitioners, so the suit to the extent of other plaintiff was not maintainable, because the Order III, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mandate as such:- "1. Appearances, etc., may be in person, by recognized agent or by pleader. Any appearance, application or act in or to any Court, required or authorized by law to be made or done by a party in such Court, may, except where otherwise expressly provided by any law for the time being in force, be made or done by the party in person, or by his recognized agent, or by a pleader appearing, applying or acting, as the case may be, on his behalf: Provided that any such appearance shall, if the Court so directs, be made by the party in person.
2. Recognized agents. The recognized agents of parties by whom such appearances, applications and acts may be made or done are--
(a) persons holding power-of-attorney, authorizing them to make and do such appearances, applications and acts on behalf of such parties;
(b) ............"
In this case, it has emerged and established that the suit was instituted on 19.03.2021, whereas alleged power of attorney submitted by the petitioner Muhammad Ashraf, authorizing him, was executed on 07.07.2022, meaning thereby, as observed above, the suit to the extent of other plaintiffs was not validly instituted. Though the said lacuna was curable by producing the other plaintiffs before the learned trial Court, yet no such exertion was made by the petitioners by producing the other plaintiffs either before the learned trial Court or before the learned appellate Court.
5. In view of the above, the learned Courts below have rightly non-suited the petitioner, concurrently and as such concurrent findings on facts cannot be disturbed when the same do not suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous in exercise of revisional jurisdiction; reliance is placed on Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469), CANTONMENT BOARD through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. IKHLAQ AHMED and others (2014 SCMR 161), Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. (2017 SCMR 679), Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others Khan (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 21) wherein it has been held:- "There is a difference between the misreading, non-reading and mis-appreciation of the evidence therefore, the scope of the appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused and care must be taken for interference in revisional jurisdiction only in the cases in which the order passed or a judgment rendered by a subordinate Court is found perverse or suffering from a jurisdictional error or the defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence and the conclusion drawn is contrary to law. This court in the case of Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630) held that the concurrent findings of three courts below on a question of fact, if not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence and not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity effecting the merits of the case are not open to question at the revisional stage."
6. Pursuant to the above, when there appears no illegality and irregularity as well as wrong exercise of jurisdiction, the revision petition in hand being without any force and substance, stands dismissed in limine.