' This be considered as admitted case.
2. ' Brief facts in the instant civil revision are that the plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for declaration praying consequential relief in respect of a shop situated in Abadi Deh Tarag. This suit was contested, issues were formulated, evidence was produced and the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 15-3-2000 dismissed the suit, the same was assailed in appeal, which too was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 8-5-2001. Both the judgments and decrees are challenged in the instant civil revision.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the judgments of both the learned Courts below are materially illegal while discarding Exh.P.8 the certified copy of the map, which was a part of the judicial record in a case titled as "Ghulam Khawaja V. Muhammad Khan". This certified copy of the map was admissible in evidence and there was no need to produce the author. In the written statement the defendant/ respondent has not asserted that map in question was incorrect. He only asserted that plaintiff has no concern with the shop in question which was situated in Abadi Deh Tarag and even in view of that matter the map in question could be deemed to have been accepted correct and there was no need to prove the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Article 85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 according to which any document which formed part of judicial proceedings is a public document. He further relied on Messrs Bangal Friends and Co. Decca v. Messrs Gour Benode Saha and Co. Calcutta and another PLD 1969 SC 477.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the map does not create a right, it shows location of boundaries and this map was produced in evidence in some case where the respondent was not a party and this map does not disclose the name of owner even the boundaries and the measurement of land is different. The map pertains to the area which is more than 5 Kanals while the suit property is 5 Marlas. The place where the disputed property is Abadi Deh wherefrom the map was taken and the abstract was prepared by the Patwari. The concurrent findings of the learned Courts below resolving the factual controversy cannot be agitated in revision petition.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Suit for declaration with consequential relief was filed by the plaintiff in respect of land measuring 4 Marlas given in the map without scale attached with the plaint. This land was purchased by the plaintiff alongwith other land vide sale-deed No,701 dated 20-34988 from one Shahnawaz and the possession was delivered to him. The defendant was his tenant and the shop was given to him at the monthly rent of Rs,30 and the defendant was regularly paying the rent but three months before his stopping to pay rent and started making alteration in the suit property i,e, a shop, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit. Preliminary objections as to maintainability, lack of cause of action, suit being insufficiently stamped, estoppel and point of limitation were taken by the defendant in his written statement. Eight issues were framed on the divergent pleadings of the parties. P.W.1 Alam Khan appeared and placed on record special attorney to the plaintiff Exh.P.1, copy of judgment of a pre- emption suit dated 10-4-1991 along with Parcha decree of suit titled "Haji Ghulam, Khawaja v.
Muhammad Khan", Exh.P.2, copy of judgment of Appellate Court dated 9-9-1991 of pre-emption suit alongwith Parcha decree Exh.P.3, sale mutation deed dated 29-3-1988, Exh.P.4, copy of judgment on application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Exh.P.5, Parcha-decree of suit titled Haji Ghulam Khawaja v.
Muhammad Khan of pre-emption suit dated 9-10-1991, Exh.P.6, Parcha decree of Appellate Court in pre-emption suit Exh.P.7 and certified copy of map without scale Exh.P.8 under objection of the learned counsel for the adverse party. It is admitted fact that sale-deed produced by the parties does not show the description of the property purchased by the vendor of the disputed shop, document is Exh.P.4. The description shown in Exh.P.4 of property purchased by the vendor is north thoroughfare, south house of Ahmad Yar east thoroughfare and west house of Ahmad Yar etc. The plaintiff has produced a map Exh.P.8 in a suit for pre-emption filed by one Ghulam Khawaja against Muhammad Khan and he produced the map without scale showing the shop in question as part of this property.
6. Learned Civil Judge vide judgment and decree dated 15-3-2000 decided Issues Nos.1, 3, 4 and 7 against the plaintiff and observed that map which forms part of the judicial record of a suit for possession through pre-emption which was dismissed and appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree Exh.P.3 the map which is Exh.P.8 was not proved by Patwari, therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove through documentary evidence that shop in possession of defendant was also purchased by him through sale-deed Exh.P.4 as description in Akas Shajra in the sale- deed snows that there is no shop or room purchased by the plaintiff through Exh.P.4 , therefore, the plaintiff has no cause of action. On appeal the learned Appellate Court also observed while deciding the issues that plaintiff has based his suit on the basis of sale-deed Exh.P.4 which does not contain the description of suit property (shop). The document Exh.P.8 is a part of judicial file of some other case where the defendant is not a party and the same was got prepared in a suit for pre-emption and the Patwari who prepared this document was not produced as to testify the document, therefore, it does not help the plaintiff.
7. The only question which is to be resolved in the instant case is whether Exh.P.8 is a public document? Article 85 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order 1984 provides:-- Public documents.--- The following documents are public documents:- (1) documents forming the acts or record of the acts;
(i) public records kept in Pakistan of private documents;
(2) documents forming part of the records of judicial proceedings;
(3) documents required to be maintained by a public servant under any law; (4)
(5) .....................................................................................................................
' According to AIR 1930 Allahabad 26 where a record plan has not been shown to be prepared by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty or by any other person in pursuance of his duty specially enjoined by the law of the country, nor has it been established by evidence that the said document formed the act or record of the act of public officers within the meaning of section 74, the record plan cannot be admitted in evidence either under section 35 or section 74 in the absence of proper evidence and of necessary particulars. It is also held in Messrs Bangal Friends and Co. Decca v. Messrs Gour Benode Saha and Co. Calcutta PLD 1969 SC 477 that copies of documents other than judicial record cannot be received in evidence without proof of signature and handwriting of persons alleged to have singed or written them. As envisaged in Seraj-ud-Din Kazi v. Rairaman Sen and others PLD 1958 Dacca 490 a mere description of boundaries in a document between third parties cannot be said to be a statement against the proprietary interest of making it and it is not admissible under section 32(2). Neither the plaintiff has given any supporting evidence that this shop was a part of the disputed property and it was built later on.
8. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent are convincing in this respect that this site plan without scale was produced in a suit for pre-emption filed by some stranger and the defendant was not party to the same and property in question is Abadi Deh, how this site plan without scale was prepared by its author and from where this site plan was taken. Moreover, the author of site plan is not produced by the plaintiff, therefore, keeping in view the complete evidence on record and the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below, this Court declines to interfere in the judgments of learned subordinate Courts. Hence, instant civil revision is dismissed. No order as to costs.