' The brief facts out of which the present revision petition arises are that the plot in question measuring 3 Marlas was allotted to Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi by the L.D.A. On 13-12-1987. An agreement to sell was allegedly executed by Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi in favour of the petitioner on 10-4-1988 for consideration of Rs,80,000. The contents of the agreement further reveal that the remaining dues of the L.D.A. Had to be paid by the petitioner. An irrevocable power of attorney was also executed by Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi in favour of the petitioner on 26-4-1988. The petitioner allegedly deposited Rs,9,000 to the L.D.A. Authorities qua the balance amount to be paid by Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi to the L.D.A. Authorities. Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi revoked the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner on 4- 10-1990 and executed power of attorney in favour of Tariq Mahmood respondent No,2 on 9-10-1990.
The petitioner being aggrieved filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction before the Civil Court. The respondent filed written statement and controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPP
(2) Whether plaintiff has not approached this Court with -clean hands? OPD
(3) Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter? OPD
(4) Whether the suit is incorrectly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is correct valuation? OP Parties
(5) Whether the defendant No,1 entered into an agreement to sell of plot in dispute on 10-4-1988 and received a sum of Rs,80,000 as consideration/price? OPP
(6) Whether general power of attorney executed by defendant No,1 in favour of plaintiff was irrevocable? If so, its effect? OPP
(7) Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration and permanent injunction as prayed? OPP
(8) Whether the suit is false, frivolous and vexatious and defendants Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to special costs under section 35-A, C . P. C .? OPD
(9) Relief.
' The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 27-5-1997. The respondents being aggrieved filed appeal before the Additional District Judge, Lahore who accepted the same vide judgment and decree, dated 25-9-1999. Hence the present revision petition.
2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that judgments of both the Courts below are at variance. He further submits that First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court without adverting to the reasoning of the trial Court. He further submits that First Appellate Court did not give findings on each and every issue and reversed the findings of the trial Court merely deciding Issues Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 which is not in accordance with Order 20, rule 5, C.P.C. He further submits that First Appellate Court reversed the findings by misreading statement of Mukhtaran Bibi D.W.3 who admitted in examination-in-chief that she did not cancel the irrevocable power of attorney executed by her in favour of the petitioner He further submits that irrevocable power of attorney was executed by Mukhtaran Bibi in favour of the petitioner and she had no lawful authority to cancel the same as per law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied on 1996 CLC 197. He further submits that D.W.3 Mukhtaran Bibi admitted in her . Statement that her thumb-impression was taken on simple piece of paper in presence of Abdul Razzaq. The respondents failed to produce Abdul Razzaq in evidence. Therefore, First Appellate Court was erred in law to decide the case against the petitioner in violation of Article 129-G of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. He further submits that petitioner filed photocopy of power of attorney alongwith the plaint as prescribed under Order 13, rule 1, C.P.C. Therefore, First Appellate Court wrongly decided the case on the ground that power of attorney was not available on the record. He further submits that Order V, rule 14 was wrongly applied by the First Appellate Court which deals with pleadings of the parties and not to prove the documents. He further submits that trial Court did not allow D.W.4 to produce the power of attorney, therefore, the petitioner was not at fault and the document was not registerable document. Therefore, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is result of misreading and non-reading of record. He summed up his arguments that judgment of First Appellate Court is in violation of the law laid down by the superior Courts. In support of his contention he relied upon Ali Muhammad v. Muhammad Hayat and others 1982 SCM R 816.
3. Learned counsel of respondent No,1 submits that First Appellate Court was justified to decide Issues Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 in favour of the respondents on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties on record before the trial Court. He further submits that the whole controversy revolves between the parties whether the agreement to sell was executed by late Mukhtaran Bibi in favour of the petitioner or not. The First Appellate Court decided the aforesaid issues which related to agreement to sell and rightly reversed the finding of the trial Court after proper appreciation of evidence on record. He further submits that admittedly the evidence produced by the petitioner is contradictory in nature. He further submits that Mukhtaran Bibi was admittedly a Pardanashin lady and allegedly agreement to sell was executed by her in favour of the petitioner not in presence of her legal heirs. He further submits that she had only signed on one blank paper simply to file an application before the L.D.A. Authorities for obtaining concession from L.D.A. Authorities qua payment of price of plot in question. He further submits that it was the duty of the petitioner to produce Abdul Razzaq and not the respondent. Learned Legal Advisor of L.D.A. Submits that plot in question is still in the name of late Mukhtaran Bibi. The L.D.A. Authorities did not transfer the same to the petitioner or respondent No,1 . He further submits that both the parties produced different documents allegedly executed by Mukhtaran Bibi qua their entitlement but L.D.A. Authorities did not take any action on the same in view of the contradictory documents allegedly executed by Mukhtaran Bibi in favour of aforesaid contesting parties. Learned counsel of the petitioner in rebuttal submits that there was no legal representative of Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi available at the time when the documents in question were executed by her in favour of the petitioner.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that the First Appellate Court has not given its findings on each and every issue in view of Order 20, rule 5, C.P.C. It is true that the First Appellate Court has not discussed each issue separately but findings on Issues Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 have been given by him after proper appreciation of evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that in the case in hand when the basic issues i,e, Issues Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 have been discussed and when the remaining issues were outcome of the same issues its discussion at length is not required having become redundant. It is settled principle of law that finding on certain issues is sufficient for the disposal of the case. The Appellate Court may not dilate upon other issues and in not deciding the other issues, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:-
(1) Gul Wali Khan v. Safdar Saleem and 10 others 1997 M LD 3075 and (2) Muhammad Bashir v. Haji Muhammad Siddiq and others -1997 M LD 3263.
' It is admitted fact that Mst. Mukhtaran Bibi was Pardanashin and illiterate lady who had allegedly executed power of attorney and agreement to sell in favour of the petitioner. It is settled law that where a document is allegedly executed by illiterate person/Pardaobserving lady the beneficiaries of the document are bound to establish by highly satisfactory and strong evidence that not only the document was executed by such illiterate person/Parda-observing lady btu also that such illiterate person/Parda-observing lady had fuly understood the contents of the document as per principle laid down by the Privy Council in Mst. Fareed-un-Nisa's case AIR 1925 PC 205. It it-also settled principle of law that it is the duty of the beneficiary to establish that the document was executed by Pardanashin lady having independent legal advice at the time of execution of the document in question. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments:--
(1) Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 and Malik Riaz Ahmad and others v. Mian Inayat Ullah 1992 SCM R 1488.
It is also the duty and obligation of the petitioners/plaintiffs being the beneficiaries of the documents in question to bring Abdul Razzaq adopted son of Mst. Mukhtaran. Meaning thereby that the petitioner had withheld the best evidence to resolve the present controversy by not producing D Abdul Razzaq adopted son of aforesaid Mukhtaran. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner that judgment of the First Appellate Court is in violation of Article 129(g) of Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 has no force. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court on Issues Nos.1, 5, 6 and 7 with cogent reasons as. Is evident from paragraphs Nos.12 to 17 of the impugned judgment of the First Appellate Court. Learned counsel of the petitioner relied upon allegedly reported judgment 1996 CLC 197. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no judgment on this page. The other judgment Ali Muhammad's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguished on facts and law and has no relevance to resolve the present controversy. It is settled principle of law IE that each and every case has to be decided on its own peculiar circumstances and facts of the case. Learned counsel of the petitioner failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misread or non-read by the First Appellate Court. It is established proposition of law that findings on question of fact or of law, howsoever, erroneous the same may be, recorded by a Court of competent jurisdiction, cannot be interfered with by the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, under section 115, C.P.C., unless such findings suffer from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity, as per principle laid down by the Privy Council in N.S. Venkatagiri Ayyangar and others v. The Hindu Religious Endowments Board, Madras PLD 1949,PC 26.
' In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition IG has no force and the same is dismissed.