JUDGMENT MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ, J.-- This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision No. 996 of 1993 and C.M. 41 l-C/93 in R.S.A. No. 113 of 1975. Ghamman son of Jewan along with Wali Muhammad and Muhammad Bakhsh sons of Murad filed R.S.A. No. 113 of 1975 against Malik Abdul Karim and Malik, Atta Muhammad sons of Muhammad Nawaz. The appellants were aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 5.2.1975 of the learned District Judge, Mianwali, who had dismissed their appeal against the judgment and decree dated 21.2.1974 of a learned Civil Judge, Bhakkar, whereby he had passed a decree for possession of the suit land subject-matter of the said R.S.A, in favour of the above-named respondents. During the pendency of the said R.S.A. Ghamman died. An application being C.M. No. 2631-C/79 was tiled for the impleading the legal representatives of Ghamman, who had died in 29.9.1978. This C.M. Was presented by Mr. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhary, Advocate, and was accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Khuda Bakhsh son of Ghamman. According to the application and the affidavit Ghamman was survived by a son namely Khuda Bakhsh and a daughter namely Satto Mai. This C.M. Came up before this Court on 12.5.1979 in the presence of Mr. Muhammad Ismail Chaudhary, Advocate,"and was allowed.
2. Mutation No. 4829 was attested by the Revenue Officer on 23.8.1979, whereby the land belonging to said Ghamman situate in village Haiderabad in the District of Bhakkar was mutated in favour of Khuda Bakhsh. Mst. Satto Mai (hereinafter to be referred to as the respondent) filed a suit on 22.3.1989 claiming a declaration that she being the daughter of Ghamman is entitled to 1/3rd share in his estate and the said mutation is against law and facts. In her plaint she averred that she is the daughter of Ghamman and Mst. Sahiban, and Khuda Bakhsh (hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) is here brother. Her father died and the petitioner representing himself to be the sole heir got the land mutated in his favour. The petitioner tiled a written statement, wherein he explained that Mst. Sahiban was earlier married to Noora an elder brother of Ghamman and the respondent is the result of the said wedlock. Two other sons namely Allah Bakhsh and Muhammad Bakhsh were also borne by Mst. Sahiban to said Noora. After the death of Noora, Sahiban married Ghamman and as a result of this marriage the petitioner and a daughter Mst. Bakhtan were born. Regarding Mst. Bakhtan, it is mentioned that she had died. The learned trial Court framed issues and recorded the evidence of the parties. The suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 17.2.1990. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bhakkar on 22.5.1993.
It will be pertinent to note here that during the course of trial a copy of the said C.M. 2631-C/79 and the affidavit accompanying it were produced as Exh. P.5 and P.6 and both the learned lower Courts have, amongst other pieces of evidence, relied upon the said exhibits, while recording their respective judgments. Present civil revision was filed on 19.6.1993.
3. On 19.6.1993 an application under Section 12(2) CPC was filed by the petitioner, which was numbered as C.M. No. 411/93 praying that a fraud has been committed in procurement of order dated 12.5.1979 in C.M. No.263 l-C/79 and that the said order be set aside. It will be important to note here that whereas the Civil Revision No. 996/93 came up before this Court on 14.7.1993 when it was admitted, the said C.M. No. 411-C/93 was put up on 19.9.1993. The notice was ordered to be issued. Ultimately, C.M. 41 l-C/93 came up before this Court on 30.11.1998 when my leaned brother was pleased to refer the matter to the learned trial Court for conducting an inquiry. It appears that by that time, it was not disclosed by or on behalf of the petitioner that a civil suit, wherein the parties went on trial on exactly the same issue had been decided and appeal has also been decided and that the civil revision is pending. It was on 31.3.1999 that Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah, Advocate, put in appearance for the respondent and apparently he informed the Court of the pendency of the civil revision and order was passed that the i.e of civil revision be added to the i.e of the said C.M.
4. Since the parties had gone to trial on the same issue i.e. As to whether or not the respondent is the daughter of Ghamman and judgments have been recorded by the Courts below, I thought it proper to take up the civil revision first, as the result of the civil revision will also determine the result of C.M.411/93.
5. Mr. Mehdi Khan Chohan, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the learned lower Courts have misread the evidence on record and as such the findings recorded by them are liable to be set aside in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. M/s. Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gilani and Saif-ul-Haq Chughtai learned counsel for the respondent, on the other had, addressed argument to support the impugned judgments.
6. I have gone through the records appended with the civil revision with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. It may be mentioned in the very beginning that before commencement of the arguments I put the learned counsel for the parties on notice to the effect that I will not be considering the C.M. And affidavit Exh. P.5 and P.6 tor the purpose of civil revision for the reason that an application under Section 12(2), CPC is pending in respect of the said documents. The learned counsel for the parties concurred with my said decision.
7. The admitted facts of the case are that Noora and Ghamman were brothers being sons of Jewan. Mst. Sahihan was married first to Noora and then to Ghamman. The fact heeded to be resolved is as to whether respondent Satto Mai was daughter of Noor or Ghamman as admittedly she is from the womb of said Sahiban. The respondent in support of her claim produced Bashir Ahmad a clerk from the office of Election Commission, Bhukkar, as PW.1. He produced entry Exh.PI regarding the respondent Satto Mai to be enrolled on the electoral rolls of District Bhakkar at Serial No. 2122. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the document is relevant inasmuch as age of Mst. Satto Mai is recorded as 51 years in the year 1979. Manzoor Ahmad clerk of District Registration Office, Bhakkar, appeared as PW.2. He had brought the i.e pertaining to the identity card of Mst. Satto Mai being maintained since 18.12.1975. According to the said record, her year of birth is 1930. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the records were prepared in the year 1975 when Ghamman was alive and there was no dispute between the parties. PW.3 Allah Baksh aged 85 years, had stated that the petitioner is the real brother of the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out in reply to a question, this witness stated that he cannot tell what was the age of Satto Mai at the time of death of Noora. This witness denied the suggestion that it was Bakhtan, who was sister of Khuda Bakhsh and that the respondent is daughter of Noora. He reiterated that respondent is daughter of Ghamman. PW.4 need not be referred to. PW.5 is Nazar Muhammad aged 75 years. His statement is significant. He has stated that the petitioner and the respondent are heirs of Ghamman being brother and sister and that "petitioner is older in age than respondent". This is very important fact deposed by PW.5 was not subjected to any questioning in the course of cross-examination. In rebuttal Sharif aged 60 years appeared as DW.1. In reply to a question, he stated that the petitioner is aged 60/65 years. He was unable to tell if the age of respondent is 40/50 years. DW.2 is Amir Hussain aged 45/50 years. In reply to a question, he states that the petitioner is aged 70/75 years while respondent is aged 60 years. Petitioner himself appeared as DW3. He stated his age on 18.12.1989 to be 61/62 years. In reply to a question he stated that he was in service and he retired upon attaining the age of 60 years in February, 1986. Mst. Satto Mai respondent appeared as PW 6 and stated her age as 60 years on 2.1.1990, when her statement was recorded. Not a single question was put to her as to the correctness of her age as stated by respondent. The cumulative effect of the evidence led by both the parties on record is that Satto Mai respondent was born to Sahiban; that Sahiban married Ghamman after the death of Noora; and that Satto Mai is younger in age than the petitioner, which means the petitioner was born first to Mst. Sahiban and respondent was born later to Mst. Sahiban.
It is a common round between the parties that Satto Mai is from the womb of Mst. Sahiban.
Evidence on record clearly indicates that Mst. Satto Mai was born later than the petitioner and this leads to only one conclusion that she was born to Sahiban as a result of her wedlock with Ghamman and she is daughter of Ghamman and full sister of the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out misreading or non-reading of the evidence by the learned Courts below. No case has been made out calling tor interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The civil revision is dismissed. Since I have upheld the findings of the learned Courts below that Mst. Satto Mai is daughter of Ghamman and sister of the petitioner. C.M. No. 411-C/93 in R.S.A. No. 113 of 1975 is also dismissed.