Judgments at variance

2026 PLD 404 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S.115Revisional jurisdiction of the High CourtJudgments at variancePreference

High Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is supposed to make comparative analysis of both the judgments of Courts below in order to determine their validity on the touchstones of S.115 of the C.P.C

It is cardinal principle of law that in the matter of giving preference to the judgments of lower courts, while analyzing the same in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, the preference and regard is always given to the findings of the appellate court, unless those are suffering with any legal infirmity or material irregularity.

2026 PLD 140 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.115Revisional jurisdiction of the High CourtJudgments at varianceScope

When the findings of the two courts below are at variance, the High Court would be justified in appreciating the evidence to arrive at the conclusion as to which of the decisions is accord with the evidence on record

Where two courts below, while giving their findings on a question of law, have committed material irregularity or failed to read the evidence on point, which resulted in miscarriage of justice, the High Court would have the occasion to re-examine the question and to give its findings on that question in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

2025 CLC 1456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 74 & 76Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115Suit for declaration and injunctionSecondary evidence, proof ofProcedureJudgments at variance

Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was decreed in his favour by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Petitioner / plaintiff claimed ownership of suit property through his father, as one of his legal heirs

Suit was filed on 08-01-2008 i.e. fifty-eight (58) years after execution and registration of alleged mutation in favour of respondent/Tehsil Municipal Administration

During his lifetime, father of petitioner / plaintiff never asserted any right or claim over the property on the basis of alleged sale deed

Petitioner / plaintiff did not inherit any asserted or recognized right from his predecessor-in-interest, therefore, he lacked locus standi to file civil revision

Petitioner / plaintiff adopted an unconventional method by summoning officials of revenue department to testify existence of alleged registered sale deed

Such document constituted secondary evidence within the meaning of Art. 74 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Record was silent as to whether requisite permission for production of secondary evidence was sought or granted under Art. 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Official witnesses deposed that a copy of registered sale deed dated 03-01-1956 was available on record but the witness had never stated that it was a genuine document

In absence of such compliance, the document could not be treated as admissible evidence

Petitioner / plaintiff nor his father took any steps to assert or reclaim possession thereafter and had failed to refer to any application or proceeding in that regard

As per revenue record for the year 2003-04, respondent/Tehsil Municipal Administration had been lawful owner in possession of suit property since its transfer

Each and every issue was discussed in detail and reasons were assigned by Lower Appellate Court for reversing findings of Trial Court

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere as petitioner / plaintiff failed to point out any jurisdictional error, illegality, material irregularity, or misreading/non-reading of evidence in the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 MLD 428 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8 & 42Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 28 & First Sched., Art. 144Suit for possessionMaintainabilityJudgments at varianceAdverse possessionTrespasserRevenue Officer in demarcation proceedings found the petitioners as encroachers upon the property in dispute

Suit for possession instituted by the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed, but the Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondent/plaintiff and decreed the suit in his favour

Contention of the petitioners was that suit for possession was not maintainable being time barred and having been filed without seeking declaration of title

Validity

Respondent purchased property from Khasra No.746, however, possession was handed over to him from Khasra Nos.745 and 746 as the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was owner in both the Khasras, thus, petitioners had not thrown any serious challenge to the title of the respondent and as such objection of the petitioners qua maintainability of suit for possession was without any force

Person is only obliged to seek declaration when somebody is interested to deny his legal right or character as ordained in S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Petitioners were claiming protection of their possession on the plea of "adverse possession", thus, when they had no title to the suit property, they could only be termed as "trespassers"

With the afflux of time illegal possession upon the property of the other, irrespective of howsoever long it is, would not extinguish the ownership of the actual owner and validate the possession of trespasser

Knocking out the respondent on account of limitation would amount to giving premium to the petitioners under the obsolete provisions of law i.e. S.28 and Art. 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which had already been declared as deviant to the Quranic Injunctions

Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2025 MLD 401 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 7 & 25Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Custody of minorWelfare of minorDetermining factorsScopeJudgments at variance

Guardian petition filed by maternal grandmother/ respondent through her daughter being special attorney against the father of minor/petitioner was dismissed by the Guardian Court, but the same was allowed by the Appellate Court

Petitioner challenged appellate decision through a constitutional petition in which despite grant of stay of execution proceedings, executing court went on to pass the impugned orders and handed over the custody of the minor

Validity

Paramount and supreme consideration in custody of minor is the welfare of minor and nothing else

Any issue regarding the custody of minor is to be assessed, examined and measured by the Guardian Courts on such yardstick and the Court has to record a definite finding on the point before passing any order in the matter

Guardian Court, while passing order, has to see the age, sex, environment under which the minor is being brought up and all the attending circumstances, position of parties and also the law to which the minor is subject to

Nothing had been alleged against petitioner, which could disqualify or disentitle him from custody of the minor

Petitioner had better capacity to look after and educate his daughter and did not have any disqualification envisaged by law and even otherwise he right from inception was vigorously pursuing the remedies to obtain the custody of his daughter, whereas the respondent/maternal grandmother was aged about 80 years and in bad health having no source of income

Factum of ailment of the respondent was admitted by her daughter being her special attorney during her cross-examination

Respondent was fully dependent on her daughters, who were working ladies and most of the time they remained at their job places and one of them converted from Islam to Bahai religion

Minor was studying at Lahore after shifting from Rawalpindi to Lahore and she was getting proper education at a private school

Executing Court instead of complying with the stay order passed by High Court proceeded to continue execution proceedings, which was highly objectionable

High Court directed the District Judge to probe into the matter and submit a report for further necessary action

Constitutional jurisdiction vested in terms of Art.199 of the Constitution casts a duty upon the court to curb the illegality or gross misreading committed by any of the courts below, while determining the rights of the parties

Constitutional petitions were allowed, in circumstances.

2025 CLC 801 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129 (e)Suit for declaration and injunctionJudgments at varianceCollusion between defendant and authorities allegedProofOfficial actsPresumption

Respondent/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit plots and alleged that his real brother applicant/defendant sought leases of certain plots in his name in collusion with authorities, after getting leases cancelled from his name

Suit was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Validity

Collusion between applicant/defendant and authorities was not proved, therefore, presumption under Art. 129 (e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was applicable that official act had been regularly performed

Leases in favour of applicant/defendant were given by authorities as per rules and procedure

Rent cases filed against respondent/plaintiff and different tenants were decided in favour of applicant/defendant and judgment passed by High Court was in field

Lower Appellate Court did not exercise jurisdiction properly and reached a wrong conclusion by misreading evidence which was beyond the parameters of law

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed in, circumstances.

2024 CLC 1137 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Suit for declarationJudgments at varianceDeclaration without possessionEffect

Petitioner / plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit land and sought cancellation of mutations attested in favour of respondent / defendant

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Petitioner asserted that he was in possession of suit land but he in his statement conceded that possession of suit land was with respondent / defendant

Petitioner / plaintiff was precluded to claim decree of declaration as owner of suit land unless relief of possession was sought

Relief of declaration is an equitable and discretionary relief

Petitioner / plaintiff twisted some material facts and produced only anecdotal evidence in support thereof which made him ineligible to claim relief of declaration

Lower Appellate Court rightly interfered with judgment passed by Trial Court

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in the matter as petitioner / plaintiff failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 PLD 259 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 10(2)Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 23Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S.4Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54Second appealSuit for declaration and injunctionJudgments at varianceContinuing cause of actionAcquisition of landCompensation, right of grantee

Appellants/authorities installed a well for public welfare in land granted to respondent/plaintiff in accordance with law

Respondent/ plaintiff was aggrieved of non-payment of compensation to him and suit filed by him was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same

Validity

In case of continuing breach of a contract and case of an ongoing wrong independent of the contract, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which breach or wrong, as the case may be, continues

Respondent/plaintiff was entitled to receive compensation in the event of land acquired for public purposes

Land was granted to appellants/authorities for installation of a well which was inherently a public purpose

Trial Court failed to appreciate legal and factual aspects of the same and dismissed the suit of respondent/plaintiff

Lower Appellate Court after discussing facts as well as evidence of parties, including additional evidence, through a well-reasoned judgment rightly decreed the suit of respondent/plaintiff who was a lawful grantee in respect of suit land

Lower Appellate Court did not commit any illegality as the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to compensation

Where there were conflicting verdicts, decision made by Lower Appellate Court should be accorded greater deference and esteem unless it was demonstrated from available documentation that such determination lacked substantiation from evidentiary support

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2024 CLC 655 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.100, O.XX, R.5 & O.XLI, R. 31Suit for specific performance of agreement to sellSecond appealMisreading and non-reading of evidencePoints for consideration in judgmentJudgments at varianceScopeRespondent / plaintiff claimed that appellant / defendant executed agreement to sell a house owned by himSuit was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondent / plaintiffValidityLower Appellate Court had given its judgment without appraisal of evidence, and it was also contrary to record

Finding of Lower Appellate Court in its judgment about "admission" regarding payment of substantial amount of sale consideration, was a complete misreading of evidence and was illegal

If Lower Appellate Court was to disagree with findings of Trial Court, which handed down its judgment while discussing issues framed in accordance with O. XX, R. 5, C.P.C., then Lower Appellate Court [Court of Final Facts], had to do issue-wise discussion, which had not been done

At least points for consideration as required under O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. should have been framed for giving decision accordingly

Only a formal point for determination was framed that whether judgment of Trial Court called for interference or not

High Court set aside the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court as it was in violation of principle settled by Supreme Court and was given in a slip shod manner, without application of judicial mind, that included, element of visible fairness in a decision

Second Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2023 MLD 1372 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 12Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100Second appealPrinciplesSuit for specific performance of agreement to sellJudgments at varianceAppellants/plaintiffs sought specific performance of agreement to sell which suit was decreed in their favourLower Appellate Court reversed findings and set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial CourtValidity

Where judgments of Courts below were at variance and High Court was hearing second appeal, preference should be given to judgment of Lower Appellate Court

Such principle of law does not entail its universal application and is not an impregnable and invariable rule of law

Finding of Lower Appellate Court is immune from interference in second appeal if the same is supported and substantiated by logical reasoning and proper appreciation of evidence and is not result of misreading and/or non-reading of evidence

Where findings of Lower Appellate Court are at variance with that of Trial Court, the two will come in for comparison of their merits in light of the facts of the case and the reasons of which the two different and contradictory, if not opposing, findings are respectively proceeded

If judgment of Lower Appellate Court is arbitrary or capricious, it can be rejected

Lower Appellate Court had gone against the weight of available evidence in holding that execution of agreement was not proved although plaintiffs/appellants were steadfast, consistent and unwavering in their stance not only in their pleadings about execution of agreement and receipt but also in their deposition and cross-examination

On the contrary, defendants/respondents did not put any serious challenge to version of plaintiff's witnesses and had made evasive denial of execution of agreement leading to improvement of case through recording evidence beyond pleadings vacillating from one position to another without being able to substantiate either

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Second appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

2022 PLD 15 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 64Suit for declaration and injunctionRelationshipProofDNA test reportJudgments at varianceDispute was with regard to relationship of parties with deceased owner of suit propertyDNA test report declared that parties were not cousins inter seSuit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the sameValidity

Report of DNA could not be considered as conclusive proof to establish or discard a relationship between parties as the same was highly cryptic and weak evidence

No reliance could be placed on such report, in presence of documentary and trustworthy oral evidence produced by respondents/plaintiffs

Revisional jurisdiction of High Court under S.115, C.P.C. was invoked by petitioners/defendants and the same could not be pressed into service unless it was a case of jurisdictional defect or the judgment was result of misreading or non-reading of evidence on record

Both the Courts were at variance and conclusion drawn by Lower Appellate Court was correct and based on proper appreciation of evidence produced by both the parties

Lower Appellate Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter brought before it and judgment rendered was based on sound reasoning

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as there was no illegality was established on record

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 CLC 1639 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss.42 & 54Suit for declaration and injunctionJudgments at variancePlaintiffs / respondents claimed to be owners of suit land and assailed mutations in favour of defendant/ appellantTrial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of plaintiffs / respondentsValidity

Ascendant of defendants / respondents had already transferred his title therefore, nothing more was left to be inherited by the latters for its transfer to defendant / appellant

Entire superstructure raised in their favour without any title or legal backing could not be perpetuated and every fresh entry in revenue record based on inheritance mutation or subsequent sale deed accrued fresh cause of action to plaintiffs / respondents to institute suit, which was well within time

Trial Court framed issue pertaining to maintainability of suit but it was not pressed and was answered accordingly

Findings regarding issue of maintainability of suit was not assailed before Lower Appellate Court by means of separate appeal or cross objection, and the same could not be agitated afresh before High Court

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Judgments being were at variance therefore, judgment of Lower Appellate Court was to be given preference over that of Trial Court

Second appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 CLC 1056 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 115Revisional jurisdiction of High CourtJudgments at varianceEffect

In case of conflicts of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court, decision of Lower Appellate Court has to be preferred in revisional jurisdiction

Preference of appellate judgment of Lower Appellate Court can only be sustainable if same is not in violation of principles of administration of justice and is not arbitrary or fanciful

Where such qualifications are apparent on record, judgment of Lower Appellate Court was not to be considered.

2017 CLC 1431 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 7Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54Suit for declaration and injunctionTalaq (Divorce)ProofJudgments at variance

Plaintiff claimed that divorce deed executed one day prior to death of her husband was illegal and she was entitled to inherit from the estate of deceased

Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court allowed appeal and decreed suit in favour of plaintiff

Validity

In a case involving conflicting judgments and findings of lower courts, the judgment of Lower Appellate Court being the court of re-appraisal of evidence, if was based on evidence and logical reasons, would prevail

Talaq in question could not legitimately deprive plaintiff of her inheritance in the estate of her deceased husband, for its effectiveness

Entire exercise was to be done in the manner provided under the provisions of S.7 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961

Copy of divorce deed was to be sent to Union Council concerned which had to issue notice thereof to wife for holding reconciliation proceedings and on failure thereof certificate for effectiveness of Talaq was to be issued on expiry of 90 days

Neither such proceedings were held nor there was any question of such proceedings as husband of plaintiff had died within one day of alleged Talaq

Plaintiff was entitled to share from estate of her deceased husband according to Shariah

Findings of facts rendered by Lower Appellate Court in favour of plaintiff after proper appreciation of evidence were based on proper reappraisal of evidence on record

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court as it did not suffer from any illegality or jurisdictional defect

Defendants failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence by Lower Appellate Court nor any jurisdictional defect was pointed out

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 YLRN 136 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 39, 42 & 54Suit for cancellation of document, declaration and injunctionJudgments at varianceEntry in revenue recordProof

Plaintiffs claimed to be owner in possession of suit land under question and assailed sale mutation showing their land transferred to defendants

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court reversed the findings and dismissed the suit

Validity

Deposition of revenue official (Mukhtiarkar) showing some doubt over entry of plaintiffs, should not have been made a touchstone by Lower Appellate Court to allow appeal of defendants when they had absolutely failed to prove actual transfer of suit property

Fact that registration of mutation or transfer of land having been made compulsory in Province of Sindh vide notification dated 23-06-1994, the same did not mean that defendants were stopped to get their sale transactions from being registered

Registration of sale would have added a degree of truthfulness to alleged transactions

Plaintiffs had been residing at place 'K' since long and had no access to either the record of their property which remained in possession of lower staff of Mukhtiarkar Office

Chances of tampering of revenue record could not be ruled out altogether

Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit of plaintiffs without taking into account all necessary facts and circumstances and did not exercise jurisdiction vested in it which resulted into erroneousness and illegality and needed to be rectified

High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 930 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.8, 42 & 54Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115Suit for possession, declaration and injunctionCross casesJudgments at variance

Plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property and sought recovery of possession, whereas conversely defendant also filed a suit

Trial Court by a consolidated judgment passed decree in favour of plaintiff and dismissed the suit filed by defendant

Lower Appellate Court modified the decrees and both the suits were partially decreed

Validity

Trial Court fully discussed case of both the parties in detail and had rightly passed decree in favour of plaintiff and dismissed suit filed by defendant

Lower Appellate Court was not justified to hold defendant also entitled to decree to the extent of 10 marlas and such findings were not supported by reliable evidence available on record

Lower Appellate Court did not properly appreciate evidence in respect of execution of deed in favour of plaintiff and acted with illegality and material irregularity while reversing finding of Trial Court in respect of dismissal of suit filed by defendant and passed decree in favour of plaintiff

High Court while concurring with finding of Trial Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Revision was allowed accordingly.

2013 PLD 39 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art.199Constitutional petitionJudgments at varianceFindings of fact, reliance onPrinciple

In the event of conflicting judgments, findings of Appellate Court are to be preferred and respected unless it is shown from record that such findings are not supported by evidence and conclusion drawn is against material available on record and order of Appellate Court suffers from misreading and non-reading of evidence or that reasons recorded for reversal of order are arbitrary, fanciful and perverse.