' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 8-7-1999 whereby the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed the civil revision filed by the petitioner upholding the concurrent findings/determinations of the Courts below.
2. Facts briefly narrated for the disposal of this petition are that the respondent lady filed a declaratory suit with consequential relief on 4-12-1994 against the petitioner/defendant claiming to be his real sister and took exception to Mutation No,311 sanctioned on 10-3-1959 whereby she was excluded in a mala fide manner from the inheritance emanated upon the death of her late father Ladha. The petitioner/ defendant controverted the stand. Issues were framed, parties led their evidence and the learned Civil Judge, Gujranwala, through his judgment dated 23-7-1996 decreed the suit. The petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment. The petitioner also filed two separate applications under Order 41, rule 27, C.P.C. Read with section 151, C.P.C. For the grant of permission to adduce additional evidence. The learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, took up this matter and dismissed the appeal as well as the applications for additional evidence. The petitioner filed revision petition which also met the same fate through the impugned judgment dated 8-7-1999. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the dismissal of the plea of additional evidence by the Courts below has been made in clear violation of the law.
4. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the documents appended with this petition. The only issue for the decision of this case was, whether the respondent/plaintiff Mst.
Habib Bibi was real sister of Muhammad Sharif who inherited the entire property left by Ladha deceased. The evidence brought on record by the respondent to establish her relationship is confidence-inspiring. The two Courts below i.e, the learned Civil Judge as well as the learned Additional District Judge minutely scanned the entire record and came to a definite conclusion regarding the relationship of the respondent with the petitioner. It is to be noted that the petitioner never moved any application during the pendency of the suit before the learned trial Court for the additional evidence. For the first time such an application was made before the First Appellate Court which was declined and the same position was maintained by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. We have noticed and it has also been noted by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court as well as by the learned First Appellate Court that the birth certificate (Exh.P.2) pertained to the year 1936 much before the filing of the suit by the respondent. When the main question qua the birth of the respondent lady and her relationship with the predecessor-in-interest could be ascertained from the evidence available on record, no illegality in the circumstances has been committed by the learned Additional District Judge as well as by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in declining the plea of additional evidence. It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge in this regard which is in the following terms:-- "4. The Appellate Court was entitled to call for fresh evidence only when conditions laid down in rule 27 of Order 41, C.P.C. Have found to exist. In the present case, neither the petitioner applied to the trial Court nor the Appellate Court required any evidence to enable itself to pronounce judgment or for any substantial cause. After minute examination of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the parties and specifically the birth certificate Exhs.P.1 and P.2 wherein Sheedan plaintiff entered as daughter of Ladha. The entry in the birth register was made on 22-12-1936 and date of birth of the plaintiff Habib Bibi/Sheedan was entered as 10-12-1936 many years prior to the present litigation between the parties. When such evidence was available on record, no other evidence was required. The Courts below, concurrently found that plaintiff was daughter of deceased Ladha and sister of petitioner/defendant. The Appellate Court rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner and committed no illegality. Allowing of additional evidence would mean the reopening of case which already had taken 4-1/2 years to reach the revisional stage. The documents which the petitioner wants to produce in evidence would not be helpful to him. There is no illegality in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the lower Courts which are unexceptionable."
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed and leave declined.