MUHAMMAD AKHTAR SHABBIR, J.--- This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner to call in question the judgment and decree dated 20.5.1997 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Pakpattan, whereby, the judgment and decree dated 29.5.1994 passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Pakpattan decreeing the suit of the respondents, was maintained.
2. The facts giving rise to the present revision petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration claiming to be the owners of the land situated in Khasra Nos. 46/5/1, 5/2, 5/3 in Muaza Rakh Malka Hans Tehsil and District Pakpattan and that the defendants/petitioners took the possession of the Khasra No. 146/5/3 forcibly about six years prior to the filing of the suit. The plaintiffs further alleged that they got the land demarcated and after obtaining the report, the defendants were asked to vacate and hand over the possession . Of the land, but they declined to do the needful. The defendant No. 3 did not contest the suit and filed conceding written statement. The suit was contested by the defendants/petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4, who filed their written statement denying the averments of the plaint and raising some preliminary objections that the suit was barred by time and the plaintiffs had no concern with the land in dispute.
3. From the controversy appearing on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court led to frame the following issues:--
(1) Is the plaintiffs estopped to file this suit by their words and conduct ? OPD 1 and 4.
(2) Is the plaintiffs suit within time? OPP.
(3) Is the suit an hand is collusive with the defendant No. 3?
OPD 1, 2 and 4
(4) Whether the plaintiffs suit filed to harass the defendants and is false, vexatious and the defendants are entitled to special costs? OPD 1, 2 and 4.
(5) Whether the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 have illegally occupied the Khasra No. 146/5/3 owned by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are entitled, to get the possession of the suit land? OPP.
(6) Relief.
After recording and appreciating the evidence pro and contra of the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.5.1994.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants/petitioners preferred an appeal and the learned Addl. District Judge, Pakpattan dismissed the same and upheld the findings of the trial Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the documents tendered in evidence by the respondents were exhibited, but were not signed by the Presiding Officer and hence this evidence could not be read in evidence. Both the Courts below have not adverted to this aspect of the case. He relied on a case of "Malik Murid Ahmad Vs. Faiz Muhammad" (1982 CLC 294) and Muhammad Ibrahim v. District Judge (1985 CLC 2644).
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently. Opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the judgment and decree of the Courts below.
7. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ,
8. The documents were tendered' in evidence under the statement of the learned counsel for the plaintiffs which is reproduced below.-- Ex.P4 AlEx.P3JAILYEx.P2,:-.,7L5,41., Ex.P1 Arc.A," {{urdu text}} 1(33 L f This order was signed by the Civil Judge and no objection at the time of tendering the afore- mentioned documents was raised by ..The learned counsel for the defendants/petitioners and in accordance with the statement of the learned counsel for the parties, these documents were exhibited on 16.11.1993. The documents were exhibited in evidence and no objection was raised at the time of production of the same. Thereafter no objection to the admissibility of the documents can be raised at any stage. This objection was not raised by the petitioners in appeal before the learned. First Appellate Court or the trial Court that the documents have not been exhibited in evidence in accordance with law.
9: It is settled principle of law that where admission of a document in evidence is not objected to the document may be taken to have been admitted and proved and objections cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time at the appellate stage. It is also settled principle of law that where the endorsement is omitted by act of Court, the parties cannot be penalised for the same. Reliance can be placed on Hakim Khan Vs. Aurangzeb and another (PLD 1975 Lahore 1170) wherein the Hon'able Judge of the Lahore High Court has observed that Judge failing to sign and initial documents placed on record, mere non-endorsement does not render documents inadmissible in evidence, omission to mark documents produced by the parties, mere irregularity documents placed on record; Court competent to look into and consider, even if documents are not exhibited.
10. In the present case the documents have been exhibited and only were not signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court.
11. In case of "Muhammad Siddique and 2 others Vs. Faqir Muhammad and another (1993 CLC 1158), the Hon'able Judge of the Lahore High Court High Court has observed that mere failure to exhibit a document formally, would not make any difference and if same was found necessary for just decision of the case, material relied upon by a party should be summoned and treated as evidence in the case without any formalities.
12. There is a concurrent finding Of the facts against the petitioners by the two Courts below which cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. No other illegality for jurisdictional defect has been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Therefore, the impugned judgments and decrees are unexceptionable.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I see no force in this revision petition, which is dismissed.