AQEEL AHMED ABBASI, J. The aforesaid captioned civil petitions for leave to appeal arise out of two judgments in Civil Revision No. S-05 of 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana on 10.09.2020 and consolidated judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur in Civil Revision Applications Nos. S-229 and S-230 of 2018 on 07.11.2022 referring to two rounds of litigation between the same parties in respect of their respective claims of being legal heirs of Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah, whereas the bone of contention between the parties before the courts below revolved around the determination of fact as to whether Sharif Shah son of Mehar Shah and Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Shah are one and the same person(s). Admittedly, the aforesaid factual controversy between the parties was already decided by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana in Civil Revision Application No. S-05 of 2009 vide order dated 10.09.2020. The necessary facts have been duly recorded by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur while deciding Civil Revision Applications Nos. S-229 and S-230 of 2018 vide order dated 07.11.2022 as noted in para 7 of the impugned judgment in Civil Petitions Nos. 148-K and 149-K of 2023 which for the sake of brevity are reproduced hereunder:- "7. Suffice it to say that the observations of the learned Additional District Judge Sukkur were legal, it is a matter of record that the applicants/petitioners were claiming to be a heir of Sharif Ali son of Mehar Shah while claiming that said Sharif Ali was the same person as Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali, but he remained unable to produce any document to prove such an assertion and was only able to provide documents that showed the name of his father as Sharif Ali and not Sharif Shah. Not only this, the same parties had an earlier round of litigation before this Court's Larkana Circuit Bench in Civil Revision Application No. S-05 of 2009 where similar documents were already taken on the record, observed and it was then held vide order dated 10.09.2020 that the two identities; Sharif Shah son of Mehar and Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali are two different people. No other misreading or non-reading was committed by the Appellate Court that could be pointed out by the applicants, the judgment otherwise being legal."
2. In view of above factual position, the controversy in the aforesaid civil petitions between the parties is same. However, since there were two rounds of litigation before different courts, the above civil petitions involving the same factual and the legal issues are being disposed of through this common order. However, it is expedient to give the brief summary of the litigation between the parties in order to appreciate as to whether the courts below dealt with the entire facts and the legal issues arising therefrom in accordance with law or otherwise.
3. Briefly the facts as recorded by the learned bench of High Court in the instant matters are that the petitioners in the above civil petitions filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction with the following prayer:- "The applicant/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking the following prayers:- i) To declare that the plaintiffs/respondents are only the legal heirs of Late Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Ali Shah. ii) Further to be declare that the claim of the defendant/appellant to be the legal heir of deceased Sharif Ali Shah is null, void, illegal, mala fide and with ulterior motive. iii) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant/appellant from illegally claiming to be the legal heir of Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Ali Shah and further he may be restrained to act illegally from distributing the daily life of plaintiffs/respondents. iv) To award the costs of the Suit. v) To grant any other relief which this Court deems fit and proper.
Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents and thereafter the following issues were settled by the trial Court:
1. Whether the Suit of the plaintiff is maintainable according to law?
2. Whether the defendant Allahdad Shah is legal heir of deceased Sharif Shah?
3. Whether me plaintiff is entitled for relief?
4. What should the decree be?
After evidence was led by the parties, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed as prayed and thereafter appeal was preferred by the respondents which has been allowed through impugned judgment dated 27.02.2009 and the judgment and decree of the trial Court has been set aside. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Applicants was confronted by the Court as to how, and in what manner, the Applicants are now seeking declaration that Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah and Sharif Shah son of Mehar Shah are one and the same person(s), as in the plaint and the prayer clause, no such relief/declaration was sought, as the only prayer was, that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah and there was nothing in the entire pleadings to the effect that whether there were two different persons with same name and different parentage."
4. The learned Single Judge, after having gone through the entire record, the proceedings in the suit as well as in the appeal and scrutiny of evidence produced by the parties, dismissed the Civil Revision Application No.S-05 of 2009 while concurring with the decision of the 1st Additional District Judge, Shikarpur in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2001 in the following terms:- I have gone through the above findings and is of the opinion that the finding arrived at by the learned Appellate Court is correct in law and facts and does not warrant any interference by this Court inasmuch as the plaintiffs entire Suit was only in relation to their claim that they are the legal heirs of Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah. They never sought any declaration that Sharif Shah son of Mehar Shah and Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah are one and the same person or as to they being two different persons of the same name but different parentage or not. Insofar as reliance placed on order dated 4.11.1998 (Ex.31-C) is concerned, the author of the said document was never examined, whereas, on perusal the same appears of be issued in a slipshod manner, devoid of any cogent reasons or authority; hence, could not have been relied upon for seeking such a declaration. Therefore, the Appellate Order appears to be correct and justified as it is not a case of exercising any jurisdiction which was not vested with the Appellate Court or even a case of misreading or non-reading of facts in the evidence and, therefore, does not warrant exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 C.P.C. so as to upset the finding of the Appellate Court. In view of such position by means of short order dated 10.09.2020, this Civil Revision Application was dismissed and these are the reasons thereof"
5. Since the parties admittedly had another round of litigation by way of FC Suit No.57 of 1999 (new FC Suit No.106 of 2010) and FC Suit No.60 of 1999, these were disposed of through a consolidated judgment dated 30.08.2016 passed by the IInd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur, however, such judgment was assailed through Civil Appeals Nos.85 and 86 of 2016 which were decided through consolidated judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Hudood) Sukkur vide judgment dated 11.10.2018, whereas the said judgment was assailed before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur through Civil Revision Applications Nos.S-229 and S-230 of 2018 which were decided through consolidated judgment dated 07.11.2022 and the said judgment has been assailed before us through Civil Petitions Nos.148-K and 149-K of 2023 along with Civil Petition No.1294-K of 2020.
6. Since the parties and the factual and legal issues involved in the aforesaid civil petitions for leave to appeal are same, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by referring to the facts and the evidence produced by the parties in support of their respective claims as the same have already been appraised by the Courts below and the learned bench of the High Court. However, it will be expedient to examine as to whether in the second round of litigation between the parties, the legal issues framed therein have been decided through proper appreciation of the evidence and proper application of law by the Courts below.
7. From perusal of the order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Sindh Bench at Sukkur in the aforesaid civil revision applications, it appears that the main issue which has been the bone of contention between the parties revolves around the determination of fact as to whether Sharif Ali Shah son of Mehar Shah and Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah are one and the same person, the learned Additional District Judge (Hudood), Sukkur while deciding the Civil Appeals Nos.85 and 86 of 2016 through consolidated judgment dated 11.10.2018 after having minutely examined the entire record and the evidence produced by the panics framed the following issues for determination:- "13. Heard the both learned counsel at length on 06.10.2018 and also perused RPs. As such, under attending circumstances Points for determination findings/decision thereon with reasons in terms of Order XLI Rule 31 C.P.C., 1908 are as under:- i) Whether Sharif Ali alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah is one and the same person and also owned the suit land as claimed by the Plaintiffs in F.C. Suit No.57 of 1999 (New No. 106/2010)? ii) Whether late Sharif Ali Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah and late Sharif Ali Shah son of Mehar Ali Shah were two different persons and late Sharif Ali Shah son of Mehar Ali Shah owned the suit property as claimed by the Plaintiffs in FC. Suit No. 60/1999 Re-Haji Allah Dad v. P.O. Sindh and others? iii) Whether dismissal of F.C. Suit No.10/1998 bars filing of fresh F.C. Suit No.60/1999 as alleged by the learned counsel for Respondents in both appeals? iv) Whether the impugned common judgment dated 30.08.2016 coupled with and followed by such Decree dated 01.09.2016 passed by the learned Trial Court of IInd Senior Civil Judge, Sukkur is illegal and merit interference? v) What should the JUDGMENT be?
FINDINGS POINT NO.1:NEGATIVE.
POINT NO.2:AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT NO.3:NEGATIVE.
POINT NO.4:AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT NO.5:Both Civil Appeals, being full of substance are accepted and impugned Judgment coupled with such DECREE dated 01.09.2016 stand set aside resulting in dismissal of leading suit and decree of subsequent suit.
REASONS.
POINTS Nos. 1 and 2.
These both points, being inter-linked are reasoned and decided together in order to avoid repetition of reasons and appreciation of documents tendered in evidence by both contesting parties."
8. The aforesaid findings of the learned Additional District Judge (Hudood), Sukkur was assailed by the petitioners before the learned High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur in Civil Revision Applications Nos.S-229 and S-230 of 2018, the learned High Court observed as under:- "6. The bone of contention here pertains to the two identities; Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Ali Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah and Sharif Ali Shah son of Mehar Shah. After remand of the case for re- framing of issues, FCS No.57 of 1999 filed by the present applicants was assigned a new number being, FCS No.I06/2010 and fresh issues were framed by the find Senior Civil Judge Sukkur that revolved around establishing the question of identity and despite framing as many as ten issues and rendering an almost-20 pages judgment, the reasoning that followed in the judgment of the IInd Senior Civil Judge revolved around the question of identity and the rest of the issues were then answered in the light of that question of identity. When the case came before the learned Appellate Court in appeals filed by the respondent No. 1, while observing that the burden of proof lies on the applicant Tasleem Hussain, learned Appellate Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree and instead decreed FCS No.60 of 1999 filed by the respondent No. 1, to Support its decision, the learned Appellate Court took into account all the relevant aspects of the case such as the fact that the applicants did not produce a single document to establish the ownership of said Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Shah over the suit property. It is a matter of record that Sharif Shah and Haji Allah Dad were two sons of Mehar Shah. Sharif Shah the brother of the respondent No.1 Haji Allah Dad, owned the suit property and died issueless, leaving behind his sole heir: his brother Haji Allah Dad. The documents produced by the applicants including the SSC-II passing certificate for Annual Examinations 1969 show the full name of the present applicant as Tasleem Hussain Shah son of Sharif Shah Syed and the mutation entries Nos.57 and 58 issued by Mukhtiarkar Shikarpur only show the name as Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali Shah only.
The vote certificate relied on by the applicant also only shows the name Sharif Ali and not his parentage, as such is of no help to the applicants. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 also produced the auction sheet which shows the name of the bidder on the suit property to be Sharif Shah son of Mehar Shah. None of the documents produced by the applicants suggest that Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali was known as Sharif Shah as well and this, in the Court's view, was done at a later stage as an elaborate plan to usurp the property originally belonging to Sharif Shah son of Mehar Shah which he then left behind for his brother, respondent No.1, Haji Allah Dad.
7. Suffice it to say that the observations of the learned Additional District Judge Sukkur were legal, It is a matter of record that the applicants/petitioners were claiming w be a heir of Sharif Ali son of Mehar Shah while claiming that said Sharif Ali was the same person as Sharif Ali Shah alias Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali, but he remained unable to produce any document to prove such an assertion and was only able to provide documents that showed the name of his father as Sharif Ali and not Sharif of Shah. Not only this the same parties had an earlier round of litigation before this Court's Larkana Circuit Bench in Civil Revision Application No. S-05 of 2009 where similar documents were already taken on the record, observed and it was then held vide order dated 10.09.2020 that the two identities; Sharif Shah son of Mehar and Sharif Shah son of Riasat Ali are two different people. No other misreading or non-reading was committed by the Appellate Court that could be pointed out by the applicants, the judgment otherwise being legal.
8. For what has been discussed above, the applicants have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree, as such instant civil revision applications being meritless are dismissed."
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted to point out any error or illegality in the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid civil petitions, however, he could not refer. to any material, nor could point out any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, except submitting that by mistake, the father's name of Sharif Ali Shah was wrongly mentioned in the official records. It is a settled legal position that party who asserts a fact to be corrected or otherwise, has to prove the same through documentary or oral evidence, which in the instant case, the petitioner miserably failed to do so. Moreover, mere assertion with regard to parentage in the official record in the absence of any declaration from the competent court of jurisdiction or correction of record by the authorities concerned, could not otherwise be given any credibility. Having seen from all angles, we do not find any error or illegality in the impugned judgment that may persuade us to interfere with the same.
10. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the instant petitions for leave to appeal which were dismissed and leave to appeal was refused vide our short order of even date and above are the reasons of such short order.