Mst. AYESHA Versus MATEE-UR-REHMAN

ORDER

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J .---This order shall decide Civil Revisions Nos.346 to 353 of 2007 as a common question is involved.

2. For purposes of this order, it will not be necessary to refer to the pleaded facts of all these cases. Suffice it to say that eight suits filed by the petitioners against the respondents in all these cases were pending when on 14-6-2005, the learned counsel for the parties made the following statement in all these cases:

The learned trial Court passed the following order on the said date in all these cases:--

"Present counsel for the parties.

Keeping in view the statement of counsel for the parties, Malik Gheela Khan son of Mahla Khan caste Jasra, r/o Pelovance, Tehsil Noorpur Thal, is appointed as referee. He is present in the Court. He is directed to decide the matter after hearing the parties and perusal of the Revenue Record available in this respect. No body will file objection on the report of Referee.

Now to come up on 8-9-2005."

3. On 14-12-2005 the said Malik Gheela Khan, Referee, got recorded his statements in favour of the petitioners. On 20-12-2005 the said referee filed applications stating that he has made wrong statements without examining the records and the records have been examined by him and his statements be recorded accordingly. Vide orders, dated 17-3-2006 in all these cases the learned trial Court dismissed the said applications and proceeded to decree all the suits. Feeling aggrieved the respondents filed eight first appeals which have been allowed by a learned ADJ, Khushab on 7-10-2006 who has set aside the said decrees and remanded back the cases to the learned trial Court for decision of the suits on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the matter was referred to the said Referee by the parties with their free consent and also agreed not to question his statement and as such the learned ADJ has acted without jurisdiction while passing the impugned orders.

5. I have gone through the copies of the records, appended with all these civil revisions, with the assistance of the learned counsel. I have already noted above the relevant proceedings in these cases. The Referee was required by Court to decide the matter after hearing the parties and perusal of the revenue records. I deem it appropriate to reproduce here the statements made by the said Gheela Khan in these cases:

(i) C.R. No.346/07

(ii) C.R. No.347/07

(iii) C.R. No.348/07

(iv) C.R. No.349/07

(v) C.R. No.350/07

(vi) C.R. No.351/07

(vii) C.R. No.352/07

(viii) C.R. No.353/07

In all these cases the Referee filed written applications on 22-12-2002 stating that the statements noted above were given by him on 14-12-2005 without examining the records and that he has now checked up the records, with the assistance of the Patwari and his earlier statements are incorrect and the correct position is that the suits filed by the petitioners are liable to be dismissed.

6. The learned trial Court had dismissed the said applications not on the ground that what the Referee has pleaded is not correct but on the ground that the respondents cannot controvert the statements of the Referee. It is but obvious that the learned trial Court completely lost sight of the fact that in terms of Article 33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, a statement made by a Referee is to be treated as an admission on behalf of the parties referring. It is also by now a settled law that an admission which is wrong in point of fact or otherwise can be withdrawn. It was a case where the Referee had moved the Court stating that he had made wrong statements and he be allowed to make correct statements as the earlier statements were made by him without examining the revenue records as directed by the Court. Learned counsel then contends that the referee at a later point of time colluded with the respondents and made the said applications which were rightly ignored by the learned trial Court. I am not inclined to agree with the learned counsel in view of the clear orders of the learned trial Court that the Referee was to decide the matter after hearing the parties and consulting the revenue records. The fact that the Referee had not consulted the records while making the statements on 14-12-2005 would be evident from examining of his statements noted in the last mentioned two civil revisions. I wonder as to how the learned trial Court decreed the suits subject-matter of the said civil revisions on the said statements as the Referee had left it to the Court to discover any mistake in the revenue records. In view of the said position, it has been rightly assumed by the learned ADJ that the statements in other cases were also given by the Referee without examining the revenue records.

7. Even if the said contention of the learned counsel is taken at its face value then in my humble opinion it was absolutely dangerous for the learned trial Court to have relied upon the statements of such a person as being depicted by the learned counsel for the purposes of decision of the suits. All the civil revisions are accordingly dismissed in limine.

M.H./A-72/L Revisions dismissed.