2001 PLP 826 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑ Pleadings 'would not constitute evidence and whatever was pleaded had to be proved, unless admitted by the other party. Abdul Majid v. Syed Muhammad Ali Shamim and 10 others 2000 SCMR 1391 ref. Ghulam Muhammad Sajhara for Petitioners. Pleading an agreement dated 25‑5‑1981 for sale of suit land by respondents Nos.2 and 3 in his favour respondent No. l filed a suit for specific performance of the same. The suit remained pending for several years and ultimately it was decided by means of a compromise on 24‑2‑1986 when it was decreed. The decree was put into execution and a deed was executed and registered in favour of respondent No. l on 5‑4‑1988.

2. On 19‑5‑1991 the petitioners filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. In the application it was alleged that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 had executed an agreement dated 11‑10‑1985 in their favour and thereafter had proceeded to execute a sale‑deed transferring the suit land to them on 16‑4‑1990. It was stated that the decree is result of fraud and misrepresentation. Respondent No.1 resisted the application. However, in a written reply alleged to have been filed by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 it was stated that they had never appeared in the suit and had never engaged any counsel and that there was no compromise. However, it was not stated as to what they have been doing after 24‑2‑1986 for a period of more than 5 year. Be that‑as it tray, the learned trial Court proceeded to frame issues and recorded evidence of the parties. The learned trial Court dismissed the application vide order dated 4‑7‑1995. A Civil Revision filed by the petitioners was dismissed by a learned Additional District Judge, Jhang on, 12‑10‑2000.

3. Learned counsel contends that respondents Nos.2 and 3 had specifically alleged that they had not appeared in the main suit and had not engaged a lawyer or have made a statement of compromise. Further, states that Hidayat Shah, respondent No.2 has put his thumb‑impression on all other documents but the statement dated 24‑2‑1986 bears his signatures. According to the learned counsel the said defect constitutes enough reason for setting aside the decree dated 24‑‑2‑1986.

4. I have gone through the record. I find that there is a written reply on the record purporting to have been filed by respondents Nos.2 and 3 but that is all. They have not turned up to appear in the witness‑box to support the said allegations made by them or in the written reply allegedly filed by them. Similarly Hidayat Shah has neither entered the witness‑box at his own nor has the petitioners made any attempt to summon him and to produce him as a witness. It is by now well‑settled that pleading do not constitute evidence and whatever is pleaded has to be proved, unless admitted by the other party. In I the absence of any proof in support of the allegations in the alleged written reply of respondents Nos.2 and 3 ‑and their failure to enter into the witness box, the contents of the written reply cannot be taken as evidence. Reference be made to the case of‑Abdul Majid v. Syed Muhammad Ali Shamim and 10 others (2000 SCMR 1391). This writ petition is frivolous and is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./P‑22/L Petition dismissed.