MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J. - This is Regular Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 1.2.1988 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge. A suit for possession through preemption was tiled on 31.7.1975 on the ground that he is co-sharer in the khata having purchased the land from the respondent No. 1 vide registered sale-deed 11.2.1975 and 3.5.1975. The appellant/plaintiff being owner in the estate and being tenant of suit land subsequently in view of the change in law and pre-emptive rights based on the ground of tenancy directed to be exclusively triable by Revenue Courts, the ground was abandoned. The suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 2.10.1986. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal which was accepted by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kasur vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.1988 dismissed the suit tiled by the appellant. The judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge is now challenged in the instant Regular Second Appeal.
2. The respondents have filed C.M. For rejection of the appeal on the ground that as no talabs have been claimed to have been made by the appellants, no decree can be passed after the target date i.e. 31.7.1986. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on "Government of N. W. F. P.
Through Secretary Law Department Vs. Malik Said Kamal Shah" (PLD 1986 S.C. 360), "Sardar A.I and others Vs. Muhammad A.I and others" (PLD 1988 S.C. 287), "Mst. Ayesha Bibi Vs. Muhammad Sajid etc." (1995 SCM R 294), :Muhammad Aziz and others Vs. Syed Haider A.I Shah" (PLD 1991 S.C. 1080), (PLD 1990 S.C. 865), "Ghulam Hussain and others Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad and others" (PLD 1994 S.C.
870), "Muhammad Arif Vs. Mst. Amina Begum" (NLR 1990 SCJ 405). "Mst. Aziz Begum Vs. Federation of Pakistan and others" (PLD 1990 S.C. 899), "Muhammad Yasin Vs. Khan Muhammad and others"
(PLD 1990 S.C. 1060) and "Barkat Ali Vs. Nazir Ahmad" (1999 CLC 373), and were in full knowledge of the applicant when he tiled suit and led necessary evidence before the learned Trial Court. That the respondent has already tiled C.M. For rejection of the R.S.A. As no decree can be passed after the target date of 31.7.1986 and no clarification of any issue is required in this case, therefore, this application be dismissed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. Suit for possession through pre- emption in respect of 173 kanals and 1 marla was filed by Muhammad Shatiq against Maj. (Retd.)
Muhammad Akram etc. On the basis that the plaintiff is a tenant for 11/12 years and has been cultivating the land as {{URDU TEXT}} and he is a co-sharer in the disputed property and co-owner in the estate. Almost all 12 issues alongwith issue No. 12-A were framed. The applicant has already exhibited -P-5 and P- 6 and these documents he wants to produce to prove Ex.P-5 and P-6. The provision of Order XXXI, Rule 27, CPC is in respect of some important evidence for a material bearing on the merits of the case which is subsequently discovered and after its discovery lateron he has a course upon for review of judgment after it has been pronounced, he can file application tor additional evidence before the learned Appellate Court as appeal is re-hearing of the merits of case. The appellant wants to prove that he is co-owner and a co-sharer with the vendor. It is held in "A.I Muhammad Vs. Shera and another" (1987 SCM R 207) Section 15 of Punjab Pre-emption Act-- appellant claiming superior right on ground of being co-sharer with vendor-finding of fact being that appellant had earlier purchased specific killas and not undivided share from sole proprietor and thus could not be considered a co-sharer---Plea that number of khata from which land was purchased had not been partitioned and thus appellant was co-sharer with vendor, repelled---If specific kills numbers were sold by sole proprietor to appellant, it would not amount to sale of unspecified or definite share so as to make him a co-sharer in khata.
4. In the present case C.M. No. 520/2000 is given after 25 years.
It was neither moved before the learned Trial Court nor before the learned Appellate Court nor with the Regular Second Appeal. This application for additional evidence has been moved after the learned counsel for the respondent has filed a C.M. For rejection of the appeal on the basis of "Said Kamal case", therefore, equity will not come to the aid of a person who is dormant and indolent upon his Own rights. Even otherwise in the instant case the decree was passed by the learned Trial Court on 2.10.1986, after the target date 31.7.1986 which is liable to he set aside. No cogent or reasonable ground exist to allow the application, the same is dismissed.
MRS. FAKHAR-UN-NISA KHOKHAR, J. The appellants/applicants prays through this C.M. For grant of permission for additional evidence of certified copy of mutation Nos. 742, 758, 759 dated 17.7.1965, 22.3.1966, 22.3.1966 and mutation Nos.
3457, 3458, 3459 dated 30.6.1983, order of learned District Collector dated 26.6.1983, report dated 25.6.1983, letter dated 21.6.1983 of A.C./Collector, report of the Tehsildar dated 23.6.1983, reports of Patwari and Kanungo, for the reason that the said documents will clarify the mutation Nos. 1195 and 1208 Ex.P-5 and P-6 respectively regarding the sale in favour of the plaintiff/appellant in establishing the exact dates of 17.7.1965 and 22.3.1966 of the orders of R.A./Collector, whereby the vendor Maj. (Retd.) Muhammad Akram, respondent No. 1 had been granted proprietary rights in respect of his entire holding on payment of the requisite sale price under the rules and policy on the subject and to prove that the name of the plaintiff/appellant had rightly been recorded in the column of ownership of both the said mutations Ex.P-5 and P-6.
2. This C.M. Has been replied with the preliminary objections that the suit was filed on 31.7.1975 where the appellant led all the necessary evidence and the suit was decreed on 2.10.1986. No application for the additional evidence could be entertained after the expiry of 25 years of the institution of the suit and 14 years of the decree with designs to fill up any lacuna. Moreover, the additional evidence is not at all necessary in the pronouncement of the judgment of this Court and that the documents required to be produced in additional evidence have no relevancy with the issues involving
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he wants to bring additional evidence in order to prove that proprietory rights have been confirmed upon Maj. (Retd.) Muhammad Akram in the decade of 1960 and the appellants were owners in estate. Even then if this stance is accepted the decree cannot he passed after 31.7.1986 as neither suit could proceed not any decree could be passed therein after 31.7.1986 as no talabs were made. The matter has been set at naught in "Haji Rana Muhammad Shabbir Ahmad Khan Vs. Govt. Of Punjab Province, Lahore" (PLD 1994 S.C. 1) therefore, the instant C.M. Is accepted and the Regular Second Appeal being incompetent is dismissed and finding of the learned Appellate Court on Issue No. 12-A regarding the rejection of appeal under Order VII Rule 11, CPC is hereby reversed.