Negative declaration

2025 PLD 28 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 42Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 66 & 69Suit for declarationProceedings of Parliament, challenging ofNegative declarationScopePlaintiff challenged/impugned a Letter issued by Standing Committee of the Senate of PakistanQuestion was whether a negative declaration can be granted in exercise of S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Held, that precepts of declaratory relief are governed by S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and the sine qua non of seeking such a declaration is to demonstrate entitlement to a legal right

Suits seeking negative declarations are not appreciated by the Courts

No plaintiff can be permitted to seek relief in a suit which would frustrate the defendant(s) from initiating a remedy for redressal of its grievance; and a plaintiff cannot be permitted to seek an injunction against the defendant, restraining the defendant from seeking a remedy in law against the plaintiff and the plaint in such circumstances ought to be rejected

Relief under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 cannot be sought without demonstration of any legal entitlement, within the meaning thereof

Plaintiff had been unable to demonstrate any right to seek relief within the meaning of the statutory provision and no case had been made out to seek the negative declaration sought

Plaint merited rejection forthwith

Suit was dismissed accordingly.

2025 PLD 97 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Art. 128Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 14 & 199Constitutional petitionQuashing of FIRCheating and using forged documentsPaternity of an individualLocus standiNegative declarationScopeDignity of individualProtection of rights of women and children

Respondent/complainant alleged that petitioner/accused facilitated falsification of NADRA record reflecting an adopted child as his son

Plea raised by petitioner/accused was that question of paternity could not be determined by brining criminal charges

Validity

No negative declaration can be sought under S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 with regard to paternity of an individual

Law only vests a right in an individual to seek a positive declaration regarding his/her paternity

Even a father cannot deny paternity of a child beyond the period prescribed in Art. 128 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

No third party, including a putative brother or sister or a family member or a relative, has locus standi to challenge paternity of an individual as no evidence can be accepted to negate statutory declaration made by Art. 128 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Prohibition against bringing a challenge against paternity of an individual is designed to protect right of such individual to dignity and privacy guaranteed by Art. 14 of the Constitution, as well as the collective interest of society in protecting rights and interests of women and children, including privacy, identity, and reputation of children from being besmirched from allegations of illegitimacy

Complainant sought to abuse process of law to question legitimacy and identity of child for pecuniary gain and in doing so he had used provisions of P.P.C. and Cr.P.C. to put pressure on the petitioner to enter into a settlement after instigating arrest of petitioner in relation to FIR in question

High Court in exercise of extraordinary Constitutional power, quashed FIR. in question that should never have been registered as no cognizable offence was made out in view of the petitioner claiming that he was father of minor as was reflected in various documents which were alleged to have been fabricated by petitioner

High Court imposed costs of Rs. 100,000/- upon respondent/complainant

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2017 YLR 804 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120Suit for declaration, injunction and damagesConcurrent findings of facts by the Courts belowNegative declarationDamagesOnus to provePlaintiff claimed that plots in question did not belong to defendants and also claimed damages of general natureTrial Court and Lower Appellate Court decided the suit and appeal in favour of plaintiff respectivelyValidity

Burden of claim of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages on account of demolition of one shop was on plaintiff which he was required to discharge through positive evidence like market value of property demolished by defendants etc.

Plaintiff failed to even mention value of properties allegedly taken away of defendant at the time of demolishing of property

No evidence existed to quantify damages, if any, the award of damages to plaintiff was devoid of any legal and factual basis

Courts below did not read evidence and perused record in its true perspective

Plaint was ambiguous and was not maintainable as S.42(b) and (e) of Specific Relief Act, 1877, did not envisage negative declaration and / declaration of general nature in respect of immovable property in favour of unidentified persons who were not even before the Court

High Court set aside the findings of two Courts below as the same were suffering not only from misreading/non-reading of evidence and record but were also contrary to the relevant law

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2012 CLC 1630 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 42Negative declarationScope

Where in plaint, relief sought for is in negative form of declaration its refusal is not justified, as there is no absolute bar contained anywhere in law.