' Rahim-ud-Din, deceased, was the owner of the suit property rough P.T.D. Issued in his favour, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, ang, in the year 1972. He died in the year 1978. On 13-7-1979 Imam Din, spondcnt No,1 claiming himself as heir/son of Rahim-ud-Din filed a suit for e partition of the suit property against Muhammad Yunus, Mst. Balquis, Mst. Ahida and Mst. Saeeda, respondents Muhammad Rafiq and Abdus Salam, were ded as defendants vide amended plaint dated 19-11- 1979. The suit was resisted. Uhammad Rafiq and Abdus Salam conceded the claim of Imam Din, spondcnt....However, Muhammad Yunus and others, the remaining fendants/ petitioners' plea was that Imam Din was not son of Rahim-ud-Din. The issues were framed. Imam Din, plaintiff, produced three witnesses namely uhammad Ismail, PW1, Shahzada Haji, PW 2, and Shaukat PW3, he himself peared as PW4. To rebut this evidence the petitioner, produced three witnesses mcly Nasir-ud-Din DWI, Yusuf DW.2 and Rahmat Ali DW3, Yunus one of defendants petitioner appeared as DW4. They tendered in confidence Ex.DI, photostat copy PTD, Ex. D2, Copy of Deputy settlement Commissioner dated 4-11-1966 Ex.D3. Order dated 6-2-1979 DSC, :.D4 and copy of Deputy Commissioner/Collector Ex.D5. In view of its findings at the plaintiff was not the legal heir of Rahim-ud-Din, deceased, so he had no use of action, The trial Court dismissed the suit on 26-4-1982. Feeling aggrieved hereby, Imam Din, filed appeal which was entrusted to learned District Judge, ang, who accepting the same setting aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court and remanded the case for decision on merits in accordance with law. Hence this revision.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the judgment of the Appellate Court suffers from misreading of the evidence of the plaintiff and non-reading of the evidence of the petitioners/defendants.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I do not feel inclined to interfere with the judgment of the Appellate Court in exercise of the revisional power of this Court for the reasons that the learned District Judge was quite competent to believe the evidence of the plaintiff which was disbelieved by the trial Court. He has given reasons for believing the evidence of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading of the evidence produced by the plaintiffs by the learned Appellate Court. No doubt the evidence of the petitioners/defendants has not been discussed by the learned Addl. District Judge, yet I do not desire to remand the case for this purpose inasmuch as the suit was filed in the year 1979; the appeal against the judgment/decree of the trial Court was accepted in the year 1983, and the present revision was filed on 12-3-1983. Since the remand of the case after 10 years of the filing of the revision does not seem to be proper, therefore, I have examined the evidence of the petitioners/defendants myself. I find that the evidence of these witnesses with regard to the relationship of Imam Din, respondent/plaintiff with Rahim-ud-Din, predecessor-in-interest, is not relevant under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat; Neither the witnesses except Muhammad Yunus are closely related to Rahim-ud-Din nor had they any special means of knowledge of the relationship if Imam Din with the Rahim-ud-Din. In cross-examination they have expressed ignorance about the other relatives of Rahim-ud-Din. Muhammad Younus is an interested witness so no useful purpose would be served by making the case a shuttle-cock. I do not see any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court.
4. Pursuant to the above discussion, the revision is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Revision