Duties and responsibilities

2017 YLRN 86 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12 (2)Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 79 & 129(g)Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellFraud and misrepresentationCompromise decree, setting aside ofAttestation of documentDocument, proof ofLicensed Deed writerResponsibilitiesSpecial power of attorneyAttesting witness

Contention of applicants-defendants was that they had not authorized any person to appear and make conceding statement on their behalf and special power of attorneys executed on their behalf were forged and fabricated documents

Validity

Stamp papers for reducing into writing power of attorneys were not purchased by all the applicants-defendants rather same were purchased by only one of the defendants

When execution of a document was denied then the burden to prove the same would shift on the party who was beneficiary of said document

Respondents-plaintiffs were beneficiaries of power of attorneys

Deed writer of power of attorneys was not licensed deed writer

Licenses were issued by the competent authority to the skilled deed writers so that the interest and rights of the parties could be secured

License deed writers were required to maintain registers to make entry of document and also to obtain signatures/thumb impressions of the executants against the said entry in the same to cross check the authenticity of the signatures/ thumb impressions of executants found to have been affixed on the relevant instruments

No such documentary evidence of corroborative nature in the shape of registers of deed writer was available on record to support the version of respondents-plaintiffs

Inference had to be drawn against the respondents-plaintiff due to non-production of register of stamp vending despite its availability

Respondents-plaintiffs had failed to produce the attesting witnesses to prove the valid execution of special power of attorneys which was mandatory under Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Valid execution of special power of attorneys could not be proved

Nothing was on record that scribe in addition to the writing of document had also acted as an attesting witness

Alleged scribe did not sign the said power of attorneys being scribe of the same and he could not be treated as an attesting witness

Mere signature of a person without witnessing the actual execution of deed could not be treated as attestation of document

Respondents-plaintiffs were required to get examined at least two witnesses to prove the execution of power of attorneys

No document could be used in evidence until the attesting witnesses were got examined in proof thereof

Non-production of said witnesses was fatal to the admissibility of power of attorneys

Applications for compromise were not got signed by all the applicants-defendants

Proceedings conducted for effecting compromise were doubtful

Impugned orders and decrees in favour of respondents-plaintiffs were result of fraud and misrepresentation of facts which could not be sustained

Impugned orders and decrees with regard to proceedings effecting compromise were set aside

Revisions filed by the plaintiffs were restored to its original numbers for disposal on merits.

2012 PLD 681 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 218(3)Election CommissionDuties and responsibilitiesScopeElection Commission was charged with the duty to 'organize' and 'conduct the election'

Article 218(3) implied that the Election Commission was responsible not only for conducting the election itself, but also for making all necessary arrangements for the said purpose, prior to the Election Day

Constitution conferred such responsibility on the Election Commission and ensured that all activities both prior, on and subsequent to Election Day, that were carried out in anticipation thereof, adhered to standards of justness and fairness, were honest, in accordance with law and were free from corrupt and/or illegal practices.