1. ' SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERY, J.--- The petitioners have impugned the orders dated 18-11-2000 and 8-5-2001 passed by the learned 3rd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana and learned Vth Additional District Judge, Larkana respectively. The facts relevant for decision of the present petition are as follows:- ' The petitioners filed F.C. Suit No,97 of 1999 seeking a declaration of their title over the land in suit and permanent injunction by way of consequential relief. It was averred on behalf of the petitioners that the land in question was their exclusive property and the respondents were disputing their rights causelessly. In the written statement, it was contended that, respondent No,1 was also a co- sharer through inheritance and the documents held by the petitioners were false and managed.
2. ' The learned trial Court framed issues arising out of pleadings of the parties, and thereafter, the petitioners/plaintiffs were asked to lead their evidence. It appears from the record that P.W. Bashir Ahmed who was the attorney of the petitioners/plaintiffs was put in the witness-box as Exh.70 and his examination-in-chief was held at length by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs. This witness inter alia stated in his examination-in-chief that the lands and Bhaddas shown in the plaint were sold out in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs and in furtherance of such sales, Khata was duly mutated in Revenue Record in favour of vendees. This witness does not claim to be present at the time when numerous sales were made nor he has claimed himself to have acted as attesting witness. However, in reply to a question, this witness testified that consideration shown in Exhs.76, 78 and 80' were paid by Mst. Sami to the vendors Noor Muhammad and Mst. Hawa. The learned counsel .For the petitioners has cited the case-law reported in PLD 1987 SC 447 and PLD 1999 SC 632.
3. ' The learned Advocate appearing for respondents carried out an extensive cross-examination.
4. Besides other points, this witness positively stated that "I was not present at the time when Noor Muhammad and Hawa executed the documents Exhs.76, 78 and 80 in favour of Mst. Sami, however, the plaintiff Mst. Sami was present. I have not stated in my examination-in-chief that, Mst. Sami was given consideration amount to Mst. Hawa and Noor Muhammad at the time of execution of documents Exhs.76, 78 and 80.
5. ' After completion of cross-examination, no suggestion was made for re-examination but on the same day learned Advocate for the petitioners/Plaintiffs sought permission to re-examine the above witness through an application in writing (Annexure "D") suggesting the following question:-- "You have stated in your examination-in-chief that Mst. Sami had paid the amount of consideration to Noor Muhammad and Mst. Hawa for the suit-land sold by them, but in cross- examination you have deposed that you have not said so. Therefore, you tell what is the correct position."
6. ' The learned counsel for the respondents in support of contentions has relied upon the case-law reported in PLD 1999 Kar. 257 and PLD 1993 SC 399.
7. ' At the very outset, we would like to point out that the proposed question to be asked in re- examination does not find place in the examination-in-chief, and it has not been contradicted by the witness in cross-examination. In fact, what is desired by the learned Advocate for petitioners/plaintiffs is that, an addition be made by the witness by saying words "at the time of execution of documents Exhs.76, 78 and 80". This, by no means, can be said to be an ambiguity which can be clarified in reexamination.
8. The object of re-examination is clear an ambiguity which has arisen upon cross-examination. It does not provide a chance to the party for making improvement in the examination-in-chief. In fact, the reexamination is directed to the explanation of the matter referred to the cross- examination. Thus, the condition essential for re-examination is the existence of some ambiguity which has crept into the examination-in-chief by the embarrassing question asked in cross- examination.
9. In common parlance, the dictionary meaning of "ambiguity" is doubtfulness-double weaning- obscurity. In the present case, there is neither any confusion causing double meaning in the examination-in-chief nor any doubtfulness is expressed by the witness in his statement. The application moved under Article 133 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat and the question proposed to be asked, in our opinion, will make the position of the petitioners/plaintiffs still worse. The proposed question can be answered in the affirmative or in the negative. In the former case, it would confirm the fact that consideration was not paid in his presence and if answered in negative, it would adversely affect the credibility of the witness. In both situations, it would lead to results not favourable to the petitioners/plaintiffs.
10. ' For the facts and reasons stated above, we are unable to find any flaw or infirmity in the two orders passed by learned Courts below to which no exceptions can be taken.
11. ' Resultantly, the instant petition is dismissed with costs alongwith listed application.