1987 PLP 167 (SCMR)
ANWAR HUSSAIN and others Petitioners Versus FATEH ALI and others Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 167 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ |
| Parties | ANWAR HUSSAIN and others Petitioners Versus FATEH ALI and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 167 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 167 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and S. A. Nusrat, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 167 (SCMR) (ANWAR HUSSAIN and others Petitioners Versus FATEH ALI and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M. Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents 1‑3.
- Date of hearing: 18th October, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25‑2‑1986 passed in Criminal Revision No. 142/1) of 1986). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Findings of fact‑‑Failure to produce original document‑ Presumption arising from‑‑Onus of proof‑‑Suit for declaration‑ Respondent denying execution of sale‑deed and seeking annulment of sale transaction‑‑Petitioners having failed to produce original deed of sale, presumption arising against them that they had deprived respondent of opportunity to disprove execution of deed by producing cogent evidence‑‑Suit decreed and decision upheld in appeal and revision‑ Findings of fact by Courts below not suffering from any substantial defect‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
M. Ashraf Azeem, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents 1‑
3. Date of hearing: 18th October, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 25th February, 1986, of the Lahore High Court; whereby petitioners' Civil Revision arising out of a declaratory suit, was dismissed. According to the facts given by the learned counsel Mst. Walayat Bibi the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents sold 14 Marlas 21, S. the disputed land out of 2 Kanals 18 Marlas to the petitioners through registered deeds. She, however, disowned the transaction as also the execution of the deeds and filed a suit for seeking a declaration to that effect and annulment of the sale. The suit was decreed on the finding of fact that she had not executed the deeds. The appeal and revision of the petitioners having been dismissed, they have now sought leave to appeal. The main consideration which weighed with the learned Judge of the High Court while affirming the findings of fact against the petitioners is that they failed to produce the original deeds of sale. That being so, a strong presumption could be raised against them that they did so in order to deprive the respondents of an opportunity to disapprove the execution by producing cogent evidence including that of the expert. The technical argument regarding the onus raised before the High Court was properly answered. Learned counsel for the petitioners has raised the same technical argument and also brought to our notice the fact that an application was made by the petitioner side before the learned trial Court seeking the summoning of Muhammad Sadiq Lumberdar who would have proved the transaction. This in no way advances the case of the petitioners in absence of the original deed which was not produced before the trial Court nor before the appellate and revisional Courts. The presumption raised by the High Court against the petitioners in this behalf will continue to operate against them. After hearing the learned counsel we are satisfied that the findings of fact reached by the learned Courts below do not suffer from any substantial defect. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused. M.I. Petition dismissed.