MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ, J.--This application, by Ahmad Raza Bokhari under section 151 of C.P.C., seeks that copying agency of this Court be directed to issue him certified copies of certified copies of three orders passed by Settlement Authorities/Order of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 17- 1-1960, order of Settlement Commissioner dated 11-3-1960 and order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 25-6-1962. All of the said certified copies were annexed with Constitutional Petition No,368-R of 1963 which was dismissed by this Court on 12-11-1965.
2. The dispute, in this application, pertains to urban immovable property No,SE-16-36 Davis Road, Lahore. Allegedly, Ahmad Raza Bokhari/applicant and his brother Syed Mehdi Raza Bokhari were in possession of the said property. One Mst. Kalsoom Begum was in occupation of servant-quarter in it. Ahmad Raza Bokhari/applicant and his brother Syed Mehdi Raza Bokhari filed Forms C.H. For its transfer. However, later on Mehdi Raza Bokhari withdrew his form leaving only form of applicant in the field. On 17-1-1960, the Deputy Settlement Commissioner transferred the said property to Ahmad Raza Bokhari. Feeling aggrieved, Mst. Kalsoom Begum unsuccessfully appealed to Additional Settlement Commissioner and after her failure filed a revision petition to Chief Settlement Commissioner. Her appeal was dismissed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner on 11-3-1960 and her revision petition met the same fate on 25-6-1962. Still dissatisfied, she filed Constitutional Petition No,368-R of 1963 which too was dismissed on 12-11-1965.
3. This, however, did not close the chapter. After the demise of Syed Mehdi Raza Bokhari, his legal heirs namely Dr. Shamim Raza Bokhari/widow, his two sons Shahid Raza Bokhari and Zahid Raza Bokhari entered the scene to claim as transferee of half of the aforesaid property. Allegedly, the new contenders removed the orders of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 17-1-1960, Settlement Commissioner dated 11-3-1960, and Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 25-6-1962 from the record of Settlement Department. Having completed that exercise, they sued for seeking declaration that they were transferee of the aforesaid property to the extent of 1/2. This suit was decreed ex parte on 17-4-1995. Confronted with this situation, the applicants moved an application under section 12(2) read with Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. For setting aside the ex parte decree dated 17-4-1995. On 4-4-1998, the applicants got summoned the Superintendent of Writ Branch of this Court as a witness. The learned trial Court did not exhibit the attested copies of afore noted orders and advised applicants to seek certified copies of certified copies of afore noted orders which were appended with Writ No,368-R of 1963. This is how this application has come to this Court vide order passed by our lord the Chief Justice dated 23-6-1998.
4. The only question, which calls for determination, is whether applicant is entitled to obtain the certified copies of certified copies of the orders of Deputy Settlement Commissioner dated 17-1- 1960, the order of Settlement Commissioner dated 11-3-1960 and order of Chief Settlement Commissioner dated 5-6-1962 appended with the memo. Of Writ Petition No,368-R of 1963. The answer to this question hinges upon Articles 85, 87 and 88 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Article 85 enumerates/defines what are the public documents. According to this Article, written instruments are divisible into two classes namely public and private. Public documents consist of act of public functionaries, in the executive, in the Legislature and in the judicial wing of Government which are required to be entered into books/registers in the course of their public duties. The relevant sub-clause in this Article is 1(3). Next we move to Articles 87 and 88. These provisions are exceptions to the rule which requires that each document is to be proved by primary evidence. Article 87 says that every public functionary having the custody of public document of which any person has right to inspect, shall give that person, on demand, a copy of it on the payment of legal fee therefor together with certificate written at the foot of the copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof. It further postulates that such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name, his official title and his seal. It, so, states that such copies shall be entitled to be designated as certified copies. From the above, it clearly follows that Article 87 only applied firstly, where a public officer is in custody of a public document mentioned in Article 85; secondly, that such document is open to inspection; thirdly that such officer is empowered to give the copy of such document to any person who makes a request for its copy and pays the legal charges due on requested copy/copies; fourthly, that such officer is to give him that copy after comparing it with the original and has to make a certificate to that effect. The question is whether a certified copy of the orders mentioned above do satisfy the above requirement. Answer is very simple. 'No'. The functionaries of the High Court were not required under any law to prepare and maintain the record of Settlement of evacuee properties. This was within the domain of Settlement Authorities constituted under evacuee laws; that said record was kept by Settlement Department with its copying agency. This Court has no nexus with such record at all. Therefore, it can safely be said that the copying agency of High Cowl cannot give the certified copies of certified copies of orders passed by Settlement Department. The in charge of the copying agency of the High Court cannot certify the copies of the certified copies annexed with the memo. Of Constitutional Petition No,368-R of 1963 with their corresponding originals. This being the position we have no difficulty in holding that copying agency of this Court cannot give certified copies of certified copies mentioned above. The applicant, if so chooses, may approach the copying agency of the Settlement Department.
5. For the above reasons, we find that this application is totally without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.