UBAIDULLAH Versus SHER MOHAMMAD

ORDER

1. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 18th January, 1982 whereby the review petition of the petitioners was dismissed as well as order dated 16th December, 1981 of the Lahore High Court whereby their civil revision had been dismissed.

2. The background is that a mutation was sanctioned in regard to an alleged gift of land by Fateh Muhammad respondent in favour of his son petitioner Taj Muhammad of undivided 2/3rd share as well as his daughter respondent Mst. Nur Bibi of undivided 1/3rd share of the suit land. This land was further transferred by Taj Muhammad petitioner to petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 his minor sons. His father respondent Fateh Muhammad filed a suit against him as well as his daughter Mst. Nur Bibi respondent and against subsequent transferees from Taj Muhammad petitioner for cancellation of the said mutation of gift as well as subsequent transfer on the ground that he had never made the gift in question nor transferred possession. The suit was contested. The Civil Judge decreed the suit of Fateh Muhammad respondent. To appeal of the petitioners against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed by the Additional District Judge. Subsequently their civil revision was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on the ground that there were concurrent findings of fact of two Courts below against the petitioners. Thereafter the petitioners filed a review petition in which they produced for the first time certified copy of the original mutation and prayed that the same be entertained. The review petition was dismissed by the same learned Judge for the reason that the mutation m question was fully known to the petitioners as they had produced m the form of documentary evidence Part Patwar of the relevant mutation and on it there was nothing to show that Fateh Muhammad respondent was present at the time of its attestation. It was also held that the case of the petitioners was entirely based on this mutation and that it was not a new matter or evidence which was discovered by them at a later stage and which was not within their knowledge at the time of the trial or which they were not able to produce before the trial Court even after exercise of due diligence. Thus according to the learned Judge in filing the review petition the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1, C.P.C. were not complied with.

3. We have heard learned counsel at some length but we do not find any flaw in the impugned orders of the Lahore High Court. Therefore this petition is dismissed.

4. M.Y.H./T‑28/S Petition dismissed.