' On 27-11-1977 the respondent filed a suit against the appellants Evacuee Property bearing No,SE- 13-R-5, was transferred to the respondent, Ghazanfar Hussain predecessorin-interest of the appellants and one Bashirud-Din Ahmad in a manner that one portion of the property was transferred to the said Ghazanfar Hussain and the respondent jointly. Later the property was demarcated into portions A, B and C portion A transferred to said Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad, portion B to the respondents and portion C to the appellants. Portion B transferred to the respondents is stated to comprise of constructed ground floor in the right wing of the said bungalow, plot in front of right wing and outer garrage with a quarter constructed over it while portion C transferred to the appellants compromise of the entire first floor of the said bungalow and a small plot in front of portion A. Portion A was assessed at Rs,55 per month, portion B was assessed at Rs,75 per month while portion C was assessed at Rs,52.13 per month; that the entire portion B is in possession of the respondent. The outer garrage was occupied by Mst. Karimee a maid of the respondent till July, 1976 when she delivered the possession to the respondent. The respondent had filed ejectment proceedings against the said Mst. Karimee as also the appellants. The relationships of the landlord was denied and so was title of the appellants. These ejectment petition were withdrawn on 19-7- 1977; that on 19/20-7-1976 the appellants got the garrage sealed in proceedings under section 155, Cr.P.C. And managed to dispossess the respondent under order of the Magistrate on 23-7-1977; that the respondent is fraudulently claiming the ownership of the said garrage. With these averments it was prayed that declaration be granted that the respondent is the owner of the quarters, garrage and lawn in the front right wing of the said, bungalow as shown in the plan attached as portion B. They also sought possession of the garrage. In their written statement the appellants took the plea that the plan being relied upon by the respondents is incorrect. They pleaded that plot, garrage and a room on top thereof had been transferred to them; that respondent had lost his case in the Settlement hierarchy. Issues were framed. Evidence of the parties was recorded. Learned trial Court decreed the suit of the respondent vide a judgment and decree dated 23-5-1981 while a first appeal tiled by the appellants was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, on 3-10-1983.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the learned lower Courts have misread the evidence on record. According to the learned counsel documents Exhs.D.W.3/2 and D.W.3/4 constituted admission on the part of respondents that the garrage and the suit plot had been transferred to be appellants as part of portion C as demarcated by the Settlement Authority.
Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand argues that the plan being relied upon by the appellants is in interpolation and has been rightly excluded by the learned Courts below. As to the documents Exh.D.W.3/2 and Exh.D.W.3/4 learned counsel contends that these documents were not admissible in evidence being copies of copy; that this document even if assumed to be properly proved contained wrong admission which is not binding on the respondents and in any case cannot be used in the present case. Further contends that respondent had entered witness- box but was not confronted with the said documents to enable him to explain the same and on this account as well the documents cannot be referred to under the law.
3. I have gone through the trial Court records. There appears to be no cavil between the parties as to the manner of transfer and demarcation so far as the portion of said Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad noted as A is concerned. The controversy is as to whom out of 2 the said garrage with quarter and open plot lying in front of portion A in the right wing was given. The respondent relied upon order dated 13-1-1962 of A.S.C. Which is Exh.P.3, order, dated 12-1-1962 of D.S.C. Exh.P.4, copy of demarcation plan Exh.P.5, copies of C.A-.Forms Exhs.P.6, P.7 and P.B. He also produced a copy of relevant page of register of application for copy as Exhs.P.1 and P.2 through Zafar-ul-Haq P.W.1.
P.W.2 Muhammad Hussain is the officer who had prepared the copies of Exhs.P.3 to P.B. It is an admitted position on record that need to produce the said witness arose as the original record were found missing from the office. Exhs.P.3 to P.8 were prepared and issued on 30-1-1964 pursuant to an application filed for the purpose on 20-12-1963. According to the order, dated 12-1-1962 Exh.P.4 the rent was apportioned amongst three transferees. Rent of portion A (Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad) was assessed at Rs,55 per month, rent of the portion B (respondent) was assessed at Rs,75 per month while rent of portion C (appellants) was assessed Rs,52.13 per month. This is how the total rent of Banglow at Rs,182.12 was apportioned. According to the order, dated 13-1-1962 Exh.P.3 the bungalow was demarcated vis-a-vis three transferees as follows:--
(A) Consist of two big rooms, two side rooms, dressing room, bath room and three side verandah, on first floor which is in possession of Bashir-ud-Din Ahmad.
(B) Consik of two big rooms, two side rooms bath room latrine, three side verandah with inner garrage, cow room, tubewell, kitchen, outer garage and quarter on it with a small plot in front of this wing.
(C) Upper portion of the property which is in possession of Pirzada Ghazanfar Hussain alongwith small plot in front of portion "A".
' Exh.P.5 is copy of the plan which denotes portion A as red, portion B is blue while against portion C it is entered "entire upper portion including stair-case alongwith small plot in front of Bungalow' portion A. Exh.P.6 is the C.M. Form filed by Ghanzafar Hussain, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants. In reply to a question No,10 as to whether anybody else is in possession of the property, answer recorded is Pirzada Muhammad Rafique, Nazir Ahmad (reference apparently is Bashir-ud- Din) and others.
' Exh.P.1 is copy of the C.H. Forms filed by said Bashir-ud-Din on 1-7-1959. In answer to the said question No,10 he has stated "upper full-flats Muqarab Hussain and Liaqat Hussain, right lower portion and motor garrage outer Muhammad Rafique Exh.P.8 is C.H. Forms filed by respondent on 29-6-1959. In reply to the said question No,10 he has stated as follows:--
(i) Full upper flats except one kitchen with one stair-case in possession of Pirzada Liaqat Hussain and Pirzada Muqarab Hussain sons of Pirzada Ghazanfer Hussain.
(ii) Left lower portion consists of two big rooms, two side rooms one kitchen and bath room in possession of Muhammad Nazir Ahmad son of Bashir-ud-Din, U.D.C., Wah Cantt.
(iii) Full right portion including one kitchen on upper portion of stairs, outer gunge and a quarter over it in possession of the "applicants".
4. The appellants on the other hand have relied on the said order, dated 13-1-1962 for apportionment of rent, ;an uncertified photocopy of grounds of appeal, dated 17-8-1965 Exh.D.W.3/2, certified copy of grounds of revision dated 5-1-1966, Exh.D.W.3/4, copy of the plan Exh.D.W.9 and copy of the plan Exh.D.W.3/19.
5. Now a reading of the plaintiffs exhibits referred to by me above do go to show that the property was demarcated vide Exh.P.3 as stated by the respondent and the plan Exh.P.5 is in accordance with the same. On the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon plan Exh.D.W.3/19. Now so far as the tracing of plans are concerned, it is verbatim copy of the plan Exh.P.5. The legend appearing on its face, regarding portion A is red and portion B is blue, is also in line with the Exh.P.5. However, following differences are noted in the two plans.
(a) The portion A of Bashir-ud-Din is delineated in red being left wing of Bangalow with of course a small plot in front thereof. Now portion A has admittedly been transferred to Bashir-ud-Din. Further in Exh.P.5 entire right wing stands delineated in blue as portion B. In Exh.D,W.3/19 the built up portion and courtyard, a garrage, cow room and kitchen are delineated in blue and entire remaining portion is delineated in red. This includes the entire open plot in front of portion A as also the plot which form part of portion B in plan Exh.P.5 and of course garrage and quarter.
(b) In the legend whereas in Exh.P.5 against portion C it is recorded "entire upper portion including staircase, alongwith small plot in front of Bangalow portion A". In Exit D.W.3/19 it reads "entire upper portion including alongwith a small plot in front of the Bungalow and one outer garrage with upper quarter.
6. A bare look on the two plans would show that neither are the delineation in Exh.D.W.3/ 19 in accord with the legend recorded, on it (i.e, portion A red)or they are in accord with the stated case of appellants themselves that plot in front of the Bungalow and the garrage/quarter forms part of portion C. On the other hand a comparison of the plan with legend would show that all that is being claimed by the appellants in fact forms part of portion "red" which was given to Bashir-ud-Din. This is nobody's case.
7. The impact and effect of order Exh. P.3 is stated to be whittled down, by the appellants, with reference to documents Exh.D.W.3/2 and Exh.D.W.3/4. These documents are respectively grounds of appeal and grounds of revision tiled by the respondents against the order of apportionment of rent dated 12-1-1962 relied upon by both the parties as Exh.P.4 and Exh.D.W.3/1. According to the learned counsel these two documents constituted admission on the part of respondents that the plot in front of the Bungalow and garrage/quarter was in fact given to the appellants as part of portion C.
8. 1 must say that a plain reading of the said documents does give the impression as gathered by the learned counsel for the appellants. However, it is also apparent on the face of record that the facts so constituting an admission according to the learned counsel for the appellants are against weight of evidence on record which shows otherwise. Be that as it may, I find that so far as the Exh.D.W.3/2 is concerned it is a photo copy arid not a certified copy. I also find that the document was duly objected to when it was sought to be entered in the statement of the appellant as D.W.3.
To my mind this document is not admissible at all under any provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Exh.D.W.3/4 has been issued from the record of writ petition filed in this Court. It has come out in the statement of D.W.3 that this document is also copy of uncertified copy. This too is not admissible in evidence.
9. Even if it be assumed that documents are admissible in evidence, I find that the respondent entered witness-box as P.W.3.
' Now he has not been confronted with the said documents at all in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Article 140 of the Qanune-e-Shandat Order, 1984, (section 145 of erstwhile Evidence Act, 1872). Questions were put to him in the cross-examination. He admitted that he filed an appeal against the apportionment of rent which was dismissed and his revision was also dismissed. He stated clearly that his revision and appeal were regarding appointment of rent and not the allotment. The matters were left at that. Now under the said provisions of law in case a party seeks to contradict a witness by statement made by him in writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those part of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. The law declared on the subject constantly by the Supreme Court of Pakistan is on the same lines. Reference be made to the case of Sikandar Hayat and 4 others v. Master F:azal Karim (PLD 1971 SC 730).
10. I am also in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents that even if by some stretch it be deemed that the said two documents constitute admission and are also admissible in evidence and have been duly proved, nothing will turn on the same because these admissions would be relatable only in proceedings in which they were made and cannot be used as admission for the purpose of present suit which had been tried on its own merit in the light of evidence recorded therein. Reference to be made to the case of Barkhurdar v. Muhammad Razzaq (PLD 1989 SC 749). Force and is dismissed leaving the parties to l0 bear their own costs.