WALL MUHAMMAD Versus AAKK

This Revision is directed against the judgments and decree dated 30th April; 1977 and 17th June, 1981 passed by the learned Civil Judge Mehar, and the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Dadu in Suit No.30 of 1974 and Civil Appeal No.39 of 1977 respectively.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Revision are that the present 3 applicants who are the sons of late Salhar Kalohoro filed the aforesaid suit for declaration to the effect that the suit property i.e. agricultural land was gifted by one Mohammad Umar, the brother of deceased Mst. Amanat, in favour of their late father and, therefore, they were the owners of the suit land. They also sought injunction for restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession. The above suit was resisted by the deceased Mst. Amanat. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed six issues. After recording of the evidence the learned Trial Court dismissed the above suit by the above judgment/ decree dated 30‑4‑1977. The applicant being aggrieved by the above judgment/decree filed the aforesaid Civil Appeal No.39 of 1977, which was also dismissed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Dadu by his aforesaid judgment/decree dated 17‑6‑1981. The applicants have filed the present revision.

3. In support of the above revision Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh, learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently urged that the learned trial Court wrongly disallowed the applicants' application to summon the alleged statement of late Mohammad Umar made by him before the Revenue Authority for effecting the gift and that though this point was urged in the appeal but was not dilated upon by the learned Appellate Court. However, at the same time he has admitted the factum that the above application for summoning of the statement was filed late during the trial. It will suffice to observe that it is a matter of discretion for the trial Court to allow the summoning of evidence in pursuance of filing of an application for its summoning at a late stage by not granting the above application it has not committed any error of the nature as to attract the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. It is an admitted position that the alleged gift was made in 1960 or 1962 by late Mohammad Umer. The suit was filed in 1974. Till then the suit land remained in the name of late Mohammad Umer, the brother of deceased Mst. Amanat. It is also an admitted position that Salhar Kalkoro, the applicants' father did not file any proceeding during his life time for claiming any alleged gift. It is also an admitted position that Mst. Amanat was a legal heir of late Mohammad Umer. The concurrent finding of the two Courts below that the applicants have failed to prove the gift of their father allegedly effected by brother of Mst. Amanat seems to be in consonance with the evidence on record. The above revision has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.

A.A./W‑22/K Revision dismissed.