The necessary facts giving rise to the present Constitutional petition are that in the year 1982 one Ghulam Hussain, father of the present petitioners, allegedly gifted the property in dispute to the present petitioners. Subsequently upon the demise of the said Ghulam Hussain a mutation of inheritance bearing No. 1122 was attested on 29-5-1982 whereby the land in dispute was mutated in favour of the present respondents out of whom respondents Nos. l and 2 are the widows of Ghulam Hussain and respondents Nos.3 and 4 are distant kindred. Aggrieved of that mutation of inheritance the present petitioners filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents on 31-5-1982. Respondents Nos. l and 4 submitted a written statement before the .Learned trial Court on 27-3-1983 wherein it was conceded by them that Ghulam Hussain deceased had in fact gifted the suit-land to the petitioners during his lifetime and it was further admitted that the mutation of inheritance was wrongly attested in favour of the- respondents. On 12-9-1982 respondents Nos.2 and 3 had also submitted their written statement but they had opted to contest the gift in question and had supported the mutation of inheritance in favour of the respondents. On 20-12-1983 respondent No.4 tiled an application before the learned trial Court under Order VIII, Rules 1 and 9, C.P.C. For permission to file another written statement to replace the one already filed on her behalf and it was maintained by respondent No.4 in the said application that she had never filed the earlier written statement purported to have been filed on her behalf by Sh. Ahsan Hafeez, Advocate and that she had never conceded the factum of the alleged gift in favour of the petitioners. That application of respondent No.4 was contested by the petitioners through a reply which was tiled on 2-1-1984. For a proper decision of the said application the learned trial Court framed the following issues:-- (1)Whether defendant No.4-petitioner had not appointed counsel and that the written statement was not filed at her dictation or instruction? OPA.
(2) Relief
2. In support of her application respondent No :4 appeared before the learned trial Court as A.W.1 and made a statement in that regard. She also produced Sikandar as A.W.2 in support of that application. As against that the petitioners produced Jahangir as R. W .1 before the learned trial Court who happens to be the husband' of petitioner No. 1. The, learned trial Court also recorded the statement of Sh. Ashan Hafeez, Advocate as C.W.1. On the basis of the evidence so recorded tie learned Civil Judge 1st. Class, Sahiv,al dismissed respondent No.4's application in question vide order, dated 21-1-1987. That order passed by the learned trial Court was assailed by respondent No. l through a revision petition before the learned District Judge, Sahiwal. Vide order, dated 21-1-1988 the-learned District Judge, Sahiwal framed an additional issue in the following terms:-- "What is the effect of the defendant No.4 being illiterate villager and old lady on the case? OPA" and sent the file of case to the learned trial Court directing it to her the arguments of the parties on the said additional issue and return its findings thereon to the learned District Judge for proper decision of the revision petition. On 17-3-1988 the learned trial Court recorded his findings on issueNo.2 and returned the tile of the case to the learned District Judge and subsequently vide judgment, dated 20-11-1989 the learned District Judge, Sahiwal accepted the revision petition filed by respondent No4 and allowed the abovementioned application of respondent No.4 regarding filing a fresh written statement. That judgment of the learned District Judge, Sahiwal has been assailed by the petitioners before this Court through' the present Constitutional petition.
3. In support of the present petition it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned District Judge had absolutely no jurisdiction to invoke Order XLI, Rule 25, C.P.C. And to frame an additional issue and then to send the case to the learned trial Court for recording a finding thereon as the matter pending before the learned District Judge was a revision petition and not an appeal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners it is only an appellate Court which can exercise jurisdiction under Order XII, Rule 25, C.P.C. And even in proper exercise of that jurisdiction the matter can be sent to the learned trial Court only for recording of evidence and not for rendering a finding thereon which finding can ultimately be given on such an additional issue by the appellate Court alone and not by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further maintained that the learned District Judge had imported an aspect of Pardanashin lady into this case from nowhere as no such plea had been taken by respondent No.4 in her application in question. He has also argued that the question of Pardanashin lady was also not a part of the additional issue framed by the learned District Judge and, therefore, the learned District Judge was not legally justified in basing the impugned judgment on the said aspect of the case. As against that the learned counsel for respondent No.4 has supported the impugned judgment and has maintained that the exercise of jurisdiction by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal in the matter does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of this Court's extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record it may straightaway be observed by this Court that .The learned counsel for the petitioners is quite justified in maintaining that the learned District Judge, Sahiwal had no jurisdiction to invoke Order XLI, Rule 25, C.P.C. While exercising revisional jurisdiction. A bare perusal of the scheme of the Civil Procedure Code shows that Order XLI, Rule 25 is attracted only in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and the said power is not to be readily, available while excising revisional jurisdiction. It may also be observed that the learned counsel for the petitioners is once again quite right in maintaining that the question of Pardanashin lady vis-a-vis respondent No.4 was quite alien to the matter pending before the learned District Judge; Sahiwal. Respondent No.4 had not taken that plea in her application submitted under. Order VIII, Rules 1 and 9, C.P.C. And, therefore, the said concept could not be imported into this case by the learned District Judge from nowhere. Be that as it may it has been found by this Court that even if both these considerations are taken out of the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal still the impugned judgment can be upheld by this Court on the basis of the evidence available on the record and the other reasons advanced by the learned District Judge.
5. The learned District Judge, Sahiwal had passed a detailed and elaborate judgment in this case in which the entire record of the case had been scrutinized and scanned. It had been found by the learned District Judge that the learned trial Court had not adverted to the evidence properly and some important aspects of this case were ignored by the learned trial Court. The learned District Judge had also observed that the learned trial Court had misread the relevant record and such misreading and non-reading amounted to material irregularity which warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction. In order to satisfy my own conscience I have also gone through the evidence in this case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. I may observe here that the evidence available on the record is such that the equities of this case did flow in favour of respondent No.4 and her plea that she had not filed the written statement in question before the learned trial Court and had not engaged. Sh. Ahsan Hafeez, Advocate as her counsel merited acceptance. The statement made by Sh. Ahsan Hafeez, Advocate before the learned trial Court as C.W.1 could leave any Court with no option but to hold that it was not proved on the record that respondent No.4 had ever actually engaged the said learned Advocate as her counsel or had submitted the written statement in question through him.
6. As regards the question of exercise of jurisdiction under Order XLI, Rule 25, C.P.C. By the learned District Judge and the illegality in respect thereof it has already been observed above that even if the additional issue framed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal in this case is taken out of consideration still the evidence on the record remained the same and any reasonable Court could have arrived at the conclusions which had been arrived at by the learned District Judge on the basis of the said evidence.
7. It has also been noticed by this Court that the learned District Judge had already arrived at a definite conclusion that the evidence available on the record had been misread by the learned trial Court which amounted to a material irregularity warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction before he had gone on to advert to the aspect of respondent No.4 being a Pardanashin lady. In .This view of the matter even if the consideration regarding Pardanashin lady is taken out of the impugned judgment passed by the learned District Judge, Sahiwal the said judgment is still sustainable on its merits. Thus, notwithstanding an improper importation of the concept of Pardanashin lady and its legal implications by the learned District Judge into this case it has been found by this Court that the said consideration had no great bearing on the findings of the learned District Judge which were otherwise sustainable on the merits of the case.
8. I am also mindful of the fact that the present petition before this Court is a Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution. In a Constitutional petition the Court is primarily concerned with jurisdictional aspect of the matter so as to determine whether the judgment impugned before this Court suffers from want of authority or jurisdiction or, not. In the present case, apart from the abovementioned in consequential lapses on the part of the learned District Judge, the learned counsel for the petitioners has remained unable to point out any other jurisdictional infirmity, illegality of approach, irregularity of procedure or perversity of reasoning on the part of the learned District Judge, Sahiwal so as to warrant an interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.