JAN MUHAMMAD Versus NAZIR AHMAD

ORDER

TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.-- -Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 5-8-2002 whereby a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed Civil Revision No.307 of 1993 filed by the petitioners and maintained the judgment dated 20-5-1992 whereby the learned Additional District Judge, Gujranwala, set aside the determination dated 3-6-1989 of the learned Civil Judge, Wazirabad.

2. Facts briefly are that one Jamal Din, a refugee, died during the disturbances in India in the year, 1947. Respecting his land left in India a Mutation bearing No. 10 was entered on 18-10-1953 which was sanctioned by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner on 17-11-1953. On the basis of the aforesaid mutation of inheritance, the petitioners got confirmed land measuring 137 Kanals, 12 Marlas out of the inheritance of said Jamal Din.

3. The respondents, who claim themselves to be the legal heirs being sister's son of Jamal Din, filed an appeal before the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner, Gujranwala, exercising the power of Collector against the above mutation, which was accepted on 18-11-1984 and the case was remitted before the Revenue Officer. The petitioners assailed the aforesaid order of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) through his order dated 26-11-984 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the Collector. The petitioners filed a revision petition which was rejected by the learned Member, Board of Revenue Punjab, through his judgment dated 13-8-1985.

4. The respondents thereafter filed a declaratory suit on 6-10-1985 taking exception to Mutation No. 10 as having been attested in a mala fide manner through fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioners controverted the stance and took an objection that the Civil Court had got no jurisdiction in the matter. The learned trial Court after framing issue on the question of jurisdiction dismissed the suit vide its judgment dated 3-6-1989. The respondents filed an appeal assailing the above judgment, which was accepted by the learned Additional District Judger, Gujranwala, vide his judgment dated 20-5-1992 with a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. The petitioners filed above civil revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore, which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 5-8-2002, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

5. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the entire material placed on record. It is reflected from the perusal thereof that the respondents took exception to the mutation of inheritance of Jamal Din, predecessor-in -interest of the parties, which was sanctioned on 17-11-1953. They placed voluminous documents on record to substantiate their right of heirship being sister's sons of the predecessor-in-interest. It was pleaded in the plaint that the mutation of inheritance had been got sanctioned in a mala fide manner by practising fraud and misrepresentation upon the Court. It is to be appreciated that the mutation proceedings are of summary 1 nature. While record the same a summary procedure is provided under the Land Revenue Act. A Civil Court is a Court of pleanary jurisdiction and it is an established principle of law that fraud can always t be challenged before the Civil Court. It is further reflected from the documents that the respondents had placed voluminous record to substantiate their right of inheritance. Furthermore, the challenge has only been thrown to Mutation No.10 of inheritance that the respondents side through fraudulent means got fictitious pedigree table prepared and succeeded in getting sanctioned the mutation of inheritance in their favour by excluding the other side. The parties cannot be left out without any relief. Here, as already stated, the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has taken reasonable view in holding that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 instant petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused.

S.A.K./J-48/S Leave refused.