M. MAHBOOB AHMAD, J.--This revision under section 115 CPC is directed against judgment and decree dated 25.9.77 passed by the learned District Judge, Kasur.
2. The facts necessary for the purposes of this revision briefly stated are that Rajmal (now represented by his legal representatives) instituted a suit against Hiray Khan (now represented by his legal representatives), Wazir Khan respondent No.2 also now represented by his legal representatives and Mann Singh respondent No.3 for a declaration that his goth (sub-caste) is not Nai and that the respondents be restrained from proclaiming him as of that goth. It was asserted by him that his goth was Nagloath and that deceased respondent No. 1 and 2 in collusion with the revenue staff during the consolidation proceedings got his goth entered as Nai. The suit was resisted by the deceased respondent Nos. 1 and 2 whereas respondent No.3 filed a conceding written statement.
3. On the basis of the divergent pleadings of the parties, the following six issues including that of relief were framed:-
1. Whether the Goth of the plaintiff as Nai was got wrongly incorporated by defendant No.2 and 3 in collusion with the revenue state? OPP.
2. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit? OPD.
3. Whether this suit is barred by readjudicate ? OPD.
4. Whether the valuation of this suit for the purposes of court i.e and jurisdiction is not correct? OPD.
5. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD.
6. Relief.
4. The learned trial court (Civil Judge, Chunian) (then District Lahore) by its judgment dated 20.12.1975 decreed the suit.
5. The contesting respondents feeling dis-satisfied with the aforementioned judgment and decree of the trial court preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kasur who accepted the same. He reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the petitioner. Hence the present revision.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ex.P.I, P.2 and P.3 which show the deceased petitioner as Meo abundantly proved that he was not a Nai but these documents have been ignored from due consideration by the learned lower Appellate Court.
7. The only other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that Ex.DA and DB were wrongly admitted in evidence by the learned lower appellate court and that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to rebut = =the said documents.
8. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the documents produced by the petitioner viz. Ex.P.I, P.2 and P.3 have been duly taken notice of by the learned District Judge as in apparent from para (3) of his judgment and there is no non-reading of record by him.
9. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that hurdle of readjudicate which issue has been decided in favour of respondents has not been crossed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who has urged nothing to object to the finding of the lower appellate court on issue No.3.
10. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents lastly contended that the declaration sought for is only in the negative from which is not permissible and that even if it be assumed that the Goth of petitioner was not Nai it would not establish his goth as Naglot. In the same context it was urged that in Ex.P.I, P.2 and P.3 the petitioner has been shown as Meo without the subcaste
(Goth) and therefore the said documents in no manner show that the petitioner was not a Nai.
11. I have given consideration to the respective contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and am of the view that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner do not have any force. It has been correctly pointed out that Ex.P.I, P.2 and P.3 do not in any manner show that the Goth of the petitioner was not Nai. It cannot therefore be held on the basis of the said documents that the petitioner's Goth was not Nai. Apart altogether from the above position, the said documents have been duly taken into consideration by the lower appellate court and no case of mis-reading or non-reading of the said documents or for that matter of any other record has been made out by the petitioner. It is well settled that the appreciation of evidence on a question of fact as made by the lower appellate court are not open to question before this court in its revisional jurisdiction. The findings of the lower appellate court in this regard are therefore not assailable in the present proceedings and as already observed above, the same otherwise also are well based.
12. As regards the second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner I suffice by observing that Ex.DA and DB have been properly admitted in the evidence after allowing the application of the contesting respondents and therefore it cannot be said that the documents have been wrongly admitted. The learned counsel for the petitioner was asked whether the petitioner sought an opportunity to rebut the afore-mentioned documents but he has not been able to show that any such request was made. The second contention of the learned counsel also therefore fails.
13. Before parting with the case, it may also be observed that the contentions of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents regarding the inability of petitioner to meet objections as to the case of the petitioner being hit by readjudicate and seeking of a declaration in the negative also appear to have force and these in no manner have been met with on behalf of the petitioner.
14. In view of the fore-going discussion, I find no merit in this revision which is accordingly dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs.