Suit for declaration and injunction

Petitioner/defendant was aggrieved of rejecting of his application by Lower Appellate Court for transfer of case from one Court to another

Validity

Since date of service of summons on 22-10-2012, by Trial Court, petitioner/defendant had been lingering on the civil suit of respondent/plaintiff for eleven years on one baseless pretext or the other

Suit was at trial stage and it would have to travel across appellate and revisional stages

No litigant could be allowed to make applications for adjournments, transfer of civil suit from one Court to another and frequent substitution of counsel

High Court showed serious concern that if such practice was not curbed by applying strict measures, the prevailing judicial system would not dispense justice, which was indeed it's constitutional and legal duty

High Court declined to interfere in the matter and imposed exemplary costs upon petitioner/defendant

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners/plaintiffs had been recorded as owners of immovable properties situated in district Quetta since their forefathers i.e. of year 1965-1966

Petitioners/plaintiffs produced documents prior to year 1979, thus they bonafidely proved to be citizens of Pakistan

Petitioners/plaintiffs were entitled to issuance of CNICs in their favour on the basis of Notification No.8/37/20)6-NADRA, dated 19-04-2017

Fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution would be rendered meaningless if a person was stripped of citizenship

This had a devastating impact on human lives

Person once registered as a citizen could not be deprived of citizenship otherwise than as was provided under law

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

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner / Province of Sindh was aggrieved of decree passed in favour of respondent / plaintiff declaring that allegation of lifting of wheat from sea port and embezzling wheat bags was not proved by authorities

Validity

Nothing was brought on record to show that flour mills had filed any complaint before any forum with regard to non-delivery of imported wheat bags, which as per allegation were misappropriated by respondent / plaintiff

Petitioner / authorities could not establish any financial loss to Provincial Government for the reason that wheat bags were allowed to be lifted on submission of pre-paid challans by four mills before relevant authority against bilties (waybills) issued by Food Department to such effect

No suit or proceedings whatsoever were initiated by Food Department for recovery of missing bags of imported wheat or alleged financial loss against respondent / plaintiff or official of Food Department who were also issued show-cause notices on the same set of allegations

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court in favour of respondent / plaintiff as the same did not suffer from any error or illegality

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Appellants / plaintiffs assailed gift deed, 27 years after its execution in favour of respondent / defendant, on the plea of fraud

Validity

Appellants / plaintiffs alleged fraud and they had to give particulars of fraud and also provide sufficient material and evidence to support such allegation, whereafter, the burden shifted upon respondent / defendant to prove genuineness of transaction allegedly based on fraud

In absence of any particulars, material or evidence to support allegation of fraud, lawful presumption attached to official record in the shape of gift, statement of donors and continued possession of suit land with respondent / defendant could not be ignored

Long standing entries in revenue record under Article 49 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 especially in register of record of rights, carried presumptions of truth and could not be controverted by mere oral evidence unless proved otherwise by sufficient and convincing evidence

Judge in Chambers of High Court, after careful scrutiny of facts and evidence produced by parties and with proper understanding of legal positions had rightly held that appellants / plaintiffs failed to establish fraudulent gift and mutation of suit land in favour of respondent / defendant in revenue record

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, as the same was un-exceptionable

Appeals were dismissed.

Respondents / plaintiffs claimed to be owners in possession of suit land purchased from an earlier allottee and alleged that subsequently the land could not be allotted to appellants / defendants by Settlement authorities

Suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs was decreed by Trial Court in their favour but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court passed in favour of respondents / plaintiffs

Validity

Respondents / plaintiffs sought a declaration of ownership and possession

Such relief could not be granted unless respondents / plaintiffs had discharged burden of proving primary transaction, namely prior allotment, proving conferment of proprietary rights upon the earlier allottee by brining on record any document in such respect

When foundational document was not produced, respondents /plaintiffs could not succeed merely on the basis of mutation entries or oral assertions

Courts were under a solemn obligation to jealously guard public property and to ensure that entries in revenue record, alleged allotments, or fiscal mutations would not become instruments for unlawful deprivation of State land through defective proof, procedural laxity or collusive conduct

Supreme Court set aside judgment and decree passed by High Court and restored that of Lower Appellate Court, consequently, suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs stood dismissed

Appeal was allowed.

Suit filed by appellants / plaintiffs was based upon a judgment and decree passed in an earlier suit which stood withdrawn at appellate stage by the then plaintiffs with permission to file fresh suit

Trial Court as well as High Court had dismissed the suit filed by appellants / plaintiffs on the ground that the judgment relied upon by them was not in existence, as that suit was withdrawn

Validity

Legislative intent governing discretion under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2) is outlined in two scenarios; one in which Court is convinced that a suit would inevitably fail due to some procedural defect, and the other where the Court recognizes sufficient grounds that warrant plaintiff's ability to initiate a fresh suit concerning either the entirety of the subject matter or a portion of a claim

Clear obligation on Court has been imposed under Order XXIII, Rule 2 (b), C.P.C. to ascertain adequacy of grounds presented for permitting plaintiff to commence new suit regarding the same claim or part of a claim centered on identical cause of action

In fulfilling such duty, Court is mandated by Civil Procedure Code, 1908 to evaluate all pertinent factors, including implications of allowing a party to re-engage in litigation based on the same underlying issues

Such scrutiny becomes increasingly vital when the application is filed at appellate or second appellate stage

If leave is granted in such circumstances, it empowers unsuccessful plaintiff to evade any un-favourable decrees previously rendered against them, essentially allowing a fresh examination of the dispute from a clean slate

Appellants did not provide solid foundation nor presented supplementary documents to demonstrate their ability to establish title without reliance on the judgment passed in earlier suit which stood withdrawn

In absence of such critical material, returning the matter to Trial Court based solely on unsubstantiated assertions of appellants / plaintiffs would serve no practical purpose

Such action would risk creating unnecessary litigation and ultimately undermine the very essence of justice

Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decree passed by the Courts below dismissing suit and appeal filed by appellants / plaintiffs

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was rejected by Trial Court due to bar of S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which order was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Revenue officer / official designated under Land Revenue Act, 1967, could not demarcate any urban property or the property that had gained character of building site

Trial Court rejected claim of petitioner / plaintiff as barred under S.172 Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the order was upheld by Lower Appellate Court mainly relying on S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

Both the Courts below failed to consider provision of S.3 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, which excluded jurisdiction of revenue authorities

Provision of S.172 of Balochistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, excludes jurisdiction of Civil Court in the matters that are solely within the authority of revenue officers

Matter was outside the jurisdiction of revenue authorities and the suit was properly filed before Civil Court

Civil Court is the most appropriate forum to resolve dispute between parties permanently by following the provisions of O.XXVI, Rr. 9 & 10, C.P.C., or O.XXVI, R.18, C.P.C. enabling Trial Court to conduct site inspection / demarcations under its authority, with the assistance of some expert revenue officials

Both the Courts below being unaware of their jurisdiction as provided by law proceeded to decide the matter without considering its legality

High Court set aside the orders passed by two Courts below as there were material illegalities and irregularities

High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to decide the suit after appointing Local Commission assisted by revenue staff in order to determine boundaries of suit property

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Suit was filed by respondents / plaintiffs assailing mutation containing names of petitioners/defendants as owners of suit land

Trial Court dismissed the suit but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same in favour of respondents/plaintiffs

Two revision applications were filed against same judgment, one was within time while the other was barred by limitation

Held: Respondents/plaintiffs had been in possession of property since long and their possession was never disturbed in any manner

There had not been any actual denial of their rights except through mutation in question

One of the mutations was attested on 28-06-1997 while the other mutation had been attested on 25-05-1998

Suit instituted on 23-09-2000 was within six years of attestation of mutation when actual denial of right took place

Delay in limitation in filing of other revision application was condoned as the other application filed against same judgment was filed within time and was also sought to be disposed of through single judgment

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court in favour of respondents / plaintiffs

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Respondent/plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit property on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favour

Both the Courts below decreed suit and appeal in favour of respondent/ plaintiff and against petitioners/defendants who were legal heirs of subsequent purchaser of suit property

Validity

Respondent/plaintiff was able to prove execution of agreement to sell, therefore, the suit should have been converted into suit for specific performance and relief could also be accordingly moulded

Agreement to sell was executed on 8-01-2010 and suit was brought by respondent/plaintiff on 17-05-2010, which was within prescribed period of limitation and there was no hindrance in converting form of suit from declaration to that of specific performance and molding the relief from a decree of declaration of title to one for specific performance of agreement to sell

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/defendants who was subsequent purchaser had sufficient notice of agreement to sell, which was earlier entered and executed between respondent/plaintiff by the owner of suit property

Such agreement could validly be executed against petitioners/ defendants

Mere fact of attestation of subsequent mutation could not be deemed sufficient to defeat agreement to sell

Petitioners/ defendants failed to point out any illegality or irregularity sufficient for setting aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction modified judgments and decrees and converted the relief from declaration and perpetual injunction to one for specific performance of contract

Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner/plaintiff assailed Permanent Transfer Deed (PTD) issued in favour of respondent/defendant claiming to be owner of suit property

Suit and appeal filed by petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

Vaidity

Period of limitation, as per Art. 14 of First Sched., to Limitation Act, 1908, for instituting a suit to set aside any act or order of an officer of Government made by him in his official capacity is one year from the date of the act or order

Period of limitation is six years under residuary Art. 120 of First Sched., to Limitation Act, 1908

Whichever of the two periods was applied, the suit of petitioner/plaintiff having been instituted on 27-02-1979 to challenge Permanent Transfer Deed dated 22-05-1965 was badly barred by the law of limitation

Petitioner/ plaintiff failed to demonstrate before High Court any misreading or non-reading of evidence, or to point out any material illegality or irregularity committed by the Courts below

Oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties was duly appreciated in accordance with law and suit of petitioner/plaintiff was rightly dismissed

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C could not disturb concurrent findings on facts when the same did not suffer not misreading and non-reading of evidence, howsoever erroneous

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below as there was no illegality, infirmity, or jurisdictional defect and findings of Courts below were well-reasoned and in consonance with law

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

One of the petitioners/defendants claimed to be exclusive owner on the basis of a gift deed executed in his favour and relied upon statement made by respondent/plaintiff during proceedings under the Succession Act, 1925

Suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was dismissed by the Trial Court but the Lower Appellate Court passed a preliminary decree of partition of inherited property

Validity

Proceedings for obtaining succession certificate are summary in nature and disputed questions of title and entitlement cannot be determined therein

Resort is to be made to a court of plenary jurisdiction for determination of disputed facts through a civil suit

Determination by a civil court is binding on courts granting succession certificates in summary jurisdiction

Findings recorded in succession certificate proceedings cannot operate as a bar for the civil court to reach a contrary conclusion regarding title or rights

Mere statement made in such proceedings does not amount to relinquishment of legal right to inheritance

High Court declined to interfere in the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court as no illegality, jurisdictional defect, misreading or non-reading of evidence was found

Lower Appellate Court was justified in setting aside the judgment of dismissal passed by the Trial Court and directing issuance of preliminary decree

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / plaintiff assailed mutation in question but suit and appeal were concurrently dismissed by two Courts below on the ground of bar to the jurisdiction of Civil Courts against consolidation proceedings

Validity

Without any proof showing that change in subsequent record of rights was result of consolidation proceedings or any lawful order passed thereunder, it could not be presumed that such change occurred due to consolidation

Courts decide cases on the basis of proof and not on presumption

Findings of both the Courts below upon section 26 of Punjab Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960 were based upon presumptions and conjectures and were not tenable in the eyes of law

Complicated questions of law and fact, particularly involving allegations of fraud, necessarily require recording and appreciation of evidence fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Court

Fraud can only be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court and not by revenue authorities exercising summary jurisdiction

Fraud and mala fides vitiate all proceedings and cannot be protected by any statutory bar

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and the matter was remanded to Trial Court for decision afresh on question of jurisdiction

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Petitioners / defendants were aggrieved of the judgment passed by the Courts below on the basis that no issue pertaining to limitation was framed

Validity

Provision of O. XIV, C.P.C. casts heavy duty upon Court to firstly determine points of dispute between the parties and then to move for recording their evidence

Parties are supposed to lead evidence to support or oppose a fact put before them in the shape of formal issues

In absence of material issue on a particular point, it cannot be believed that party concerned was aware about the exact nature of dispute regarding which that party had to lead evidence

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and appeal was remanded for decision afresh after framing proper issues particularly on the point of limitation

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land on the basis of registered sale deed which was incorporated in revenue record

Revenue authorities cancelled mutation in the name of petitioner / plaintiff and resultantly respondent / defendant purchased suit land from previous owner

Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was decreed in his favour by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit

Validity

Person claiming protection under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was bound to establish that the person from whom suit property was transferred to him was an ostensible owner, while transfer so made was with the consent of real owner, either express or implied

Such transfer must have been made for some consideration and the person who was transferee or purchaser must have acted in good faith with all reasonable care and steps before entering into such transaction for transfer

If any one of such ingredients was missing, then the transferor was not eligible to seek protection of equitable doctrine envisaged under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Sanctity was attached to a registered document and it was considered a notice to public at large

In order to dislodge such presumption mere inquiry of revenue record was not sufficient

Entries of revenue record were not foundation of title as such entries were made for fiscal purposes

Neither respondent / defendant specifically sought protection under S. 41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 nor had established such fact through any evidence

Sale deed executed in favour of petitioner / plaintiff remained intact and no one had challenged validity and legality of sale deed in question

Although mutation in question had been cancelled, yet petitioner / plaintiff was owner of suit property on the strength of sale deed and previous owner had no right to sell suit property in favour of respondent / defendant

Revenue officer was not competent to cancel mutation entered on the strength of registered sale deed on the ground that provision of Martial Law Regulation had been violated

Order cancelling mutation in question was void ab-initio having no effect upon the rights of petitioner / plaintiff

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Suit filed by respondents / plaintiffs was with regard to share of a deceased widow whose husband (owner of land) died in year 1947 during migration to Pakistan

Suit was filed in year 2009 and Lower Appellate Court partially decreed the suit in favour of respondents / plaintiffs

Validity

Claim of inheritance must cross the bridge of limitation, waiver and acquiescence

Unchecked tendency of encouraging a relief in the guise of inheritance was not warranted under the law

Encouragement of such claims and long drawn trials in statute barred suits is counterproductive for genuine and bona fide claims of female heirs

Predecessor-in-interest respondents/ plaintiffs (deceased widow) never voiced any grievance against mutation of inheritance even on her demise in year 1988

Legal heirs of deceased widow (respondents/plaintiffs), kept silent for almost 21 years and suddenly woke up from their slumber and had filed suit in year 2009, which was not permissible under the law

At the time of sanction of mutation of inheritance in year 1952 provisions of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1948 had to be applied

Jurisdiction of Civil Court was barred for the purpose of suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs

Suit was even otherwise statute barred, in terms of Arts. 95 and 120 of First Schedule, read with section 18 of Limitation Act, 1908

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court resultantly suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs was dismissed

Second Appeal was allowed accordingly.

When two original attesting witnesses of a document were available, neither scribe of document nor any other witness could be treated as an attesting witness

Document was solely attested by a witness in violation of Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Execution of sale deed was not proved as it was not attested by at least two witnesses, as mandated by Art.79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Appellant / plaintiff and his witness failed to establish as to whether contents of sale deed were read over to respondent / defendant who was an illiterate individual and was its alleged executant

Such omission was critical, as it was essential to prove a document purportedly executed by an elderly illiterate person

Appellant / plaintiff was obligated to prove due execution of sale deed in accordance with law but had failed to do so and there were contradictions in evidence presented by appellant / plaintiff

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of two Courts below as there was no grave injustice or material illegality evident on record

Second appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Phrase "at the first hearing of the case" means the stage of preliminary examination and settlement of issues and straight away lending on O.XVII, C.P.C.

Demand of evidence cannot be termed as discretion but contrary to the language of O.XII, R.6, C.P.C. which read "without waiting for determination of any other question between the parties" and has made it mandatory upon Court to first deal with the issue of admission and to decide the same through speaking order

Rights of parties cannot be huddled while hanging the point of admission

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner / defendant alleged that despite revoking of power of attorney, suit land was sold by the attorney in favour of respondents / plaintiff

Plea raised by petitioner / defendant was that no sale consideration was given to him therefore, sale was not concluded

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decided the matter in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Validity

Burden of proof was squarely on respondent / plaintiff to establish that he was indeed a bona fide purchaser

Respondent / plaintiff had to provide clear and convincing evidence showing not only that the purchase was made in good faith and for fair value but also that it was done without any knowledge, actual or constructive, of the revocation of the authority under which the sale was conducted

Mere assertion of good faith and bona fide purchaser was insufficient and without such proof on record, claim of respondent / plaintiff of a bona fide purchase was not tenable

Scope of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C. is limited and narrowly defined

While exercising revisional powers, High Court refrains from interfering with concurrent findings of Courts below

Such principle is grounded in judicial discipline and respect for factual determinations made by subordinate Courts

However, this rule is not absolute and does not entirely bar High Court from exercising its revisional jurisdiction in appropriate cases

Powers under S.115, C.P.C. is specifically intended to prevent gross miscarriage of justice and to correct decisions that are patently illegal or perverse

Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court misapplied relevant legal provisions and incorrectly evaluated evidence on record, thereby rendering a decision that was not only legally flawed but had also caused serious prejudice to the rights of affected party

High Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below, as interference under S.115, C.P.C. was not only justified but necessary to uphold the principles of justice and legality

Resultantly suit filed by respondent / plaintiff was dismissed

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

Appellants / plaintiff's claimed that suit properties were Benami transactions in favour of respondent / defendant, who was their real mother

Contention of appellants / plaintiffs was that they had been deprived of their legal share by respondent / defendant who was just an ostensible owner

Validity

Attributes of "Benami transaction", in reality means a transaction in the name of another person to describe and express a transaction of a property who holds that property as an ostensible owner for its beneficial owner

In fact, it is a genre of transaction where somebody recompenses for the property but does not get hold of it in his personal name

Person in whose name such type of property is purchased is called Benamidar and the property so purchased is called Benami property

Despite the fact a Benami property is purchased in the name of someone else, the person who sponsored the transaction is the real owner

By and large, the assets acquired in the name of spouse or a child for which the money is paid from known sources of income is called Benami property

Onerous sense of duty lies on the party who raises plea of Benami transaction to prove by adducing unimpeachable evidence

Court is not required to decide such pleas on the basis of mere suspicion

Mode and manner of transaction is to be established by corroborating intentions of parties at the relevant time which could be congregated from surrounding circumstances such as relationship/association of parties, the motive or aspiration implicit in transactions including subsequent comportment and factum of possession of the property and custody of title documents

Best possible evidence could have been adduced by deceased himself if he had any dispute with regard to title of properties which he never raised in his lifetime

Even if properties were purchased through funds or resources of deceased husband, then both husband and wife were privy to such arrangements/transactions in their own marital relationship

After passing of several years, children could not question or challenge title or ownership of properties in the name of their mother without any cogent proof or trustworthy evidence that she was actually an ostensible owner

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Appellants / plaintiffs claimed share in suit property on the plea that respondents / defendant had become owners on the basis of will executed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, in year 1934

Suit was decreed in favour of appellants / plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit

Validity

Creation of life interests for enjoyment of usufruct of properties upon death of a male holder were done away with and were subjected to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962

By virtue of section 2-A of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 limited estates had been done away with retrospective application of such provision

Predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants became the absolute owner of property in question

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

If concurrent findings recorded by lower fora were found to be in violation of law, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, they could not be treated as so sacrosanct or sanctified that they could not be reversed by High Court in its revisional or Constitutional jurisdiction or in a second appeal, as a corrective measure come what may

Where glaring errors, non-reading or misreading of evidence or any legal and jurisdictional issues arise, the stumbling block of doctrine of concurrent findings cannot shield a flawed or erroneous decision

Trial Court possesses distinctive position to adjudge trustworthiness of witnesses and cumulative effect of evidence led in the lis

Appellate Court accords deference to such findings, which are not overturned unless found erroneous or defective

It is also not within the domain or function of Appellate Court and or High Court to re-weigh or re-interpret evidence but they can examine whether jurisdiction or order attains benchmark of an unflawed judgment and whether it is in consonance with the law and evidence and free from unjust and unfair errors apparent on the face of record

If the concurrent findings are found to be in violation of law or are based on flagrant and obvious defect floating on the surface of the record then it can be reversed as a corrective measure without undue regard to the fact that matter culminated in concurrent findings

Supreme Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by all Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision afresh on merits

Appeal was allowed.

Petitioners / plaintiffs were aggrieved of order passed by High Court declining withdrawal of suit with permission to file fresh suit on the plea of some formal defect

Validity

Petitioners / plaintiffs could not refer to any 'formal defect' which could be: misdescription of partis, incorrect valuation, procedural errors or technical defects, which did not affect merits of the case and if such defects went to the root of the case, the same could not be considered as formal defects

When there was a verdict against petitioners / plaintiffs existing in field, they could not be allowed to step back, without disclosing formal defect in the plaint by using shoulders of Court

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality, and the law on the subject had correctly and judiciously been appreciated and construed

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Appellant/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land and assailed mutation of gift on the plea of fraud, allegedly attested on her behalf in favour of respondents/defendants

Validity

Beneficiaries under mutation in question had burden to demonstrate validity of original transaction

This entailed meeting a threefold burden

Firstly, there was a pleading burden; respondents / defendants had to articulate all relevant facts and material particulars regarding purported gift in their written statement

Secondly, respondents/defendants had the burden of producing evidence, which meant presenting documents or testimony supporting their claims

Thirdly, they carried burden of persuasion, effectively convincing the Court of the legitimacy of their assertions regarding original gift transaction

Such burdens were not abstract legal formalities and formed the bedrock of fairness in civil litigation

Burden of pleading ensures proper framing of issues; the evidentiary burden establishes factual basis; and the burden of persuasion is the ultimate determinant of legal entitlement

Appellant/plaintiff was justified in delaying any legal action until the threat to her rights had become overt and undeniable

This point accrued when respondents/defendants formally denied her claim before revenue authorities

Such event culminated in an order directing appellant/plaintiff to pursue her claim in civil Court

Appellant's/plaintiff's suit was instituted within the stipulated limitation period

Supreme Court set aside concurrent findings of facts by all the Courts below as they were fundamentally flawed and the suit filed by appellant/plaintiff was decreed

Appeal was allowed.

Suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court on the ground that they could not prove their relationship with deceased allottee of suit property

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below

Validity

Respondents/plaintiffs could not establish and prove their relationship with allottee of suit land by leading confidence inspiring, trustworthy and independent evidence

Suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was rightly dismissed by Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court and High Court had wrongly evaluated evidence on record while setting aside concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below

High Court had ample powers to undo and disturb concurrent findings of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. but if the same were found to be based on any illegality or irregularity and wrong exercise of jurisdiction

No such occasion was available with High Court; therefore, when position was as such, concurrent findings of two Courts on facts should not have been interfered with

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

Appeal was allowed.

Appellants/plaintiffs were occupants of suit land who were given option to match the highest bid during auction of suit land

Suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs against respondent/Evacuee Trust Property Board was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same against respondent/Board

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Bid at an auction was only an offer and without confirmation or approval it did not create any right in the property in favour of successful bidder

By matching bid of the highest bidder, appellants/plaintiffs merely stepped into their shoes

Status of appellants/plaintiffs upon exercising the option was no different from the highest bidder

Decision was made to re-auction suit land, and there was nothing preventing appellants/plaintiffs from participating in auction

Rejecting of highest bid and order of re-auction had afforded equal opportunity to persons whose bid had been rejected

Principles of natural justice were not deemed to have been violated

Acceptance of highest bid was subject to approval or confirmation by competent authority and unless and until such approval was granted or confirmation was made there was no concluded contract vesting the highest bidder with an interest in the property subjected to auction

Since approval contemplated by terms and conditions of auction was never issued in favour of appellants/plaintiffs, they were not entitled to a declaration to the effect that respondent/ETPB was legally bound to receive remaining amount of the highest bid and vested the appellants/plaintiffs with ownership rights in suit land

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Respondent/plaintiff assailed sale mutation attested in favour of appellant/defendant on the plea that the same was a result of coercion while keeping him in illegal confinement

Suit was decreed by Trial Court in favour of respondent/plaintiff, whereas appeal and revision filed by appellant / defendant were dismissed by Lower Appellate Court and High Court respectively

Validity

Upon filing of suit and after that making a statement before Court on oath that he/she has not made the transaction and the instrument, the onus to prove such instrument shifts and the beneficiary must prove the transaction as well as valid registration/attestation of document

Respondent/plaintiff was a grown-up married person having a daughter, who pleaded that he was abducted by appellant/defendant who kept him in abduction for 4-5 days and got mutation in question attested and denied transaction of sale in favour of appellant/defendant

It was prime duty of respondent/plaintiff to prove the case pleaded by him but he failed to prove the same

Appellant /defendant produced Patwari as well as revenue officials in the court as witnesses, who had attested mutation in question and they fully supported the entrance and attestation of mutation

Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by three Courts below and dismissed the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff

Appeal was allowed.

Such indolent person(s) could not be allowed to play with the process of Court and linger on the matter on one pretext or the other, that too, without any plausible and valid reason

Through speaking orders, petitioner/plaintiff was granted absolute last and final opportunities for production of his evidence with clear cut warnings but he did not pay any heed to orders and directions of Trial Court

Petitioner/plaintiff had an adamant attitude towards orders of Trial Court

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as there was no illegality

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioners/defendants claimed to be nominees of deceased member of cooperative society, whereas respondents/plaintiffs were among the legal heirs of deceased member

Suit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court and High Court decreed the same in their favour

Validity

In presence of heirs of deceased member, the nominee and after his death petitioner/defendant could not succeed him, rather the share and interest of deceased established in the Society would devolve upon his legal heirs

Petitioner/defendant could not claim allotment on the basis of membership in society accorded prior to his birth

Some fraud was played by petitioner/defendant in order to deprive legal heirs of deceased member from their valuable rights accrued in their favour

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioners/plaintiffs were aggrieved of setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree passed against respondents/defendants

Validity

Mandate of law is that one should not be condemned unheard and every litigant should be provided with fair opportunity to plead and defend his/her case by adhering to principle of audi alteram partem

Technicalities should and ought to be avoided

Trial Court while dealing with the suit did not resort to mandated procedure of law for procuring service of respondents/defendants

Application seeking setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree was rightly and correctly accepted by Trial Court and affirmed by Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction and High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Supreme Court declined to interfere in orders passed by the fora below who had rightly and legally adjudicated upon the matter and did not commit any illegality

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioners/plaintiffs sought correction of parentage of their predecessor-in-interest in revenue record but Lower Appellate Court as well as High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction dismissed the suit

Validity

Party who asserts a fact to be corrected or otherwise has to prove the same through documentary or oral evidence but petitioners failed to do so

Mere assertion with regard to parentage in official record in absence of any declaration from Court of competent jurisdiction or correction of record by authorities concerned could not otherwise be given any credibility

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no error or illegality in it

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Petitioners/plaintiffs claimed to be owners of suit property on the basis of gift deed made by their predecessor-in-interest and had assailed mutation of inheritance

Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees

Validity

Gift in question was conditional because possession was not delivered to petitioners/plaintiffs

Donor had retained possession during his lifetime, meaning thereby that one of the ingredientsof a valid gift was missing

When a document creates a future obligation(s) or right(s), it has to be compulsorily registered and when position remains otherwise, such document does not confer any right(s) in view of command of section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 read with section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882

High Court had rightly construed law on the subject in such regard and when such document, creating future obligation(s) and right(s) was executed, the same, when challenged, was required to be proved by producing two marginal witnesses as per mandate of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such proof was lacking in the present case as none of petitioners/plaintiffs produced witnesses in witness box for identification of their signature

Concurrent findings of facts recorded by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court were rightly upheld by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C.

Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Award made by Registrar was void, as dispute between parties was not "touching the business of the society" within the meaning of section 54 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925

Registrar had no authority to determine title or ownership of disputed property when valid judgment passed by a competent Court of law was already in existence and no appeal had been preferred by petitioner/defendant

Requirement that dispute must be one "touching the business of the society" goes to the very root of the jurisdiction of Registrar or the arbitrators acting under section 54 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925

Award by Registrar under Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 could not directly or indirectly adversely affect or overrule a civil Court's judgment and decree

Arbitration proceedings were initiated in a manner that contravened established legal principles, and award passed therein could not override a final judicial determination by a competent civil Court

High Court was justified in setting aside arbitration award and subsequent lease deed executed in favour of petitioner/defendant

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court which was well-reasoned and had considered all material aspects of the case

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Thereafter the owner had gone missing and remaining suit land was transferred through mutation of inheritance in favour of defendant/brother and defendant/ sister considering him (the owner) dead

Plaintiffs were successors-in-interest of third brother who did not get any share from suit land

Suit filed by plaintiffs was decreed and mutations in question were declared invalid

Validity

Statement of plaintiff could not be relied upon as he was a minor at the time of his father's death, and he had not stated who told him that his father was unaware of the sale

Such statement of plaintiff was treated as mere hearsay

Where original owner did not opt to contest sale mutation while alive, his death could not confer any rights or standing upon his descendants to challenge such sale

Plaintiffs lacked standing, and their claim was barred by time limitations imposed by law

If evidence shows a person was alive within thirty years prior to the date when question of his status arises, there is a presumption that he is still alive

Burden of proof then falls upon the party asserting his death

Such presumption is susceptible to rebuttal under Article 124 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

If it can be demonstrated that such a person has not been heard of for a period of seven years by those who would naturally have maintained contact with him, the burden of proof then shifts to those claiming the person is still alive

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs predeceased his brother, thus, he had no claim to any inheritance from him

Plaintiffs lacked legal standing necessary to challenge validity of mutation of inheritance as they could not substantiate their claim to any share of inheritance

Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below as none of the Courts below properly appreciated such aspect of the matter, and had misdirected themselves, holding that inheritance mutation was void

Supreme Court declared that both sale mutation and inheritance mutation were valid

Appeal was allowed.

Respondent/plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit land on the basis of gift made in her favour by her deceased father

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

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction restored judgment and decree passed by Trial Court

Validity

At no material stage authorities and/or any sitting tenant disputed declaration made by deceased owner of land that he had gifted 909 acres of land, equivalent to 9,997 Produced Index Units ("PIUs") to his daughter

This was recognition of the gift by Land Reform Authorities that had resulted in deceased landlord escaping resumption of his land beyond 36,000 PIUs in favour of government

Other legal heirs/descendants of deceased land owner who were defendants in the suit had also not challenged such declaration dated 13-04-1959 and/or the document maintained by Land Reforms Authorities under which gift in favour of respondent/ plaintiff had been recognized and accepted

Declaration made by deceased land owner before Land Reforms Authorities was an admission as to the factum of gift in favour of his daughter who was a minor when the declaration was made

Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court

Appeal was dismissed.

Entry in school Dakhil-Kharij (Admission-Leaving) Register was prepared by school when age of petitioner / plaintiff was ten years and she could not manage such document

Respondent / defendant did not dispute documents produced by petitioner / plaintiff which had come into the ambit of admission

Petitioner / plaintiff proved her date of birth as per her school record

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioner / plaintiff

High Court directed respondents / defendants to correct date of birth of petitioner / plaintiff as per her school record

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Applicant / plaintiff was aggrieved of rejection of his plaint by Trial Court and dismissal of appeal by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Under O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. it was incumbent upon Lower Appellate Court to frame points for determination, record its decision on each of such points and assign reasons for decision, whether judgment of Trial Court was affirmed, reversed or modified

Formulation of points for determination and application of an independent judicial mind to the controversy between the partis was essential to demonstrate that Lower Appellate Court had discharged its appellate jurisdiction in accordance with law

High Court set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court, as it had erred in law, while passing order in question, which suffered from misreading and misinterpretation of law

High Court remanded the matter to Lower Appellate Court for decision afresh on appeal on its own merits in accordance with the provisions of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Memorandum of appeal was not signed by Chief Executive or legally authorized person and this was against the mandate of O. XXIX, R. 1, C.P.C.

In a suit by or against corporation any pleading could be signed and verified on behalf of corporation by Secretary or Director or other principal officer of the corporation, who was liable to depose to the facts of the case

Memorandum of appeal could be signed as per O. XLI, R. 1, C.P.C. by appellant or his pleader, and a Revision Petition could also be signed by petitioner or its pleader as revisional jurisdiction was a part of general appellate jurisdiction of superior Courts

As a beneficiary, the petitioner / Company was required to prove allegation of illegal use of electricity and genuineness of assessments so imposed on respondent / plaintiff but no evidence was brought on record

Electricity meter of respondent / plaintiff was defective and she had applied for its replacement which was not replaced

High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, as there was no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest

Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants

Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively

Validity

In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown

Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute

One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession

Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest

High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest

Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants

Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively

Validity

In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown

Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute

One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession

Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest

High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Respondents/plaintiffs assailed mutation of inheritance attested in favour of petitioners/defendants on the plea of change of faith

Suit and appeal were concurrently decided in favour of respondents/ plaintiffs

Validity

Canon of the Quran and Sunnah were applicable to inheritance of estate of deceased Muslim

Non-Muslim was not entitled to inherit any share from the estate of his Muslim relative as successor or predecessor

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ defendants was Qadiani at the time of incorporation of inheritance mutation whereas his father who was owner of suit land was a Muslim

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/defendants was not entitled to inherit from the estate of his Muslim father

Trial Court rightly decreed suit of respondents/plaintiffs which decision was lawfully upheld by Lower Appellate Court

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below, as the petitioners/defendants could not point out any illegality or material irregularity in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below, neither there was any jurisdictional defect

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

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.

Defendant/ petitioner was proceeded ex-parte and his application under O. IX, R.7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, seeking to set aside ex-parte order was allowed by the Trial Court

Said order was set aside by the Revisional Court by dismissing the very application for setting aside of ex-parte order being time barred

Validity

On 07.02.2012, respondent No.1/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration, permanent injunction along with cancellation of documents, wherein all the defendants appeared and filed their written statements except present petitioner, who was defendant No.5 in the said suit

Trial Court issued process for procuring representation of the petitioner and eventually he was directed to be served through publication in the newspaper, but he did not bother to appear and vide order dated 09.07.2012, ex-parte proceedings were carried out against him by the Trial Court

After elapse of twelve years, the petitioner moved an application for setting aside ex-parte proceedings, which was accepted by the Trial Court vide order dated 26.04.2024

However, in revision petition filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff, said order was set-aside by the revisional Court in terms of order dated 13.11.2024 holding that the application filed by the petitioner was hopelessly time barred

Ex-parte proceedings could be set-aside only within the prescribed limitation period, except in cases where lack of proper service was conclusively established

In the present case, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside ex- parte proceedings after 12 years, which was far beyond the limitation period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1908 and no justifiable grounds existed for condoning such an excessive delay

No cogent evidence had been provided to establish misrepresentation on the part of private respondent/plaintiff

Moreover, law favoured vigilant and not the indolent

Constitutional jurisdiction under Art.199 could not be invoked as a substitute for ordinary legal remedies, particularly where a petitioner had failed to pursue the available legal options within the prescribed statutory timeframe

Revisional Court correctly dismissed the application, as no jurisdictional defect or violation of fundamental rights had been demonstrated

Furthermore, any ongoing civil litigation between private parties before the Civil Court was separate from the petitioner's case and should have no legal consequence for him

Therefore, attempt of petitioner to challenge the ex-parte proceedings at this stage was legally unsustainable

High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction is not supposed to interfere in the findings on the controversial question of facts

Scope of the judicial review of the High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution in such cases, is limited to the extent of misreading or non-reading of evidence or if the finding is based on no evidence, which may cause miscarriage of justice

It was not proper for the High Court to disturb the finding of fact through reappraisal of evidence in writ jurisdiction or exercise this jurisdiction as a substitute of revision petition or appeal

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of petitioners / plaintiffs was set aside by Lower Appellate Court and suit was dismissed

Validity

Proper procedure is provided for maintaining and preparing Register Girdawari

Concerned Patwari is bound to enter Girdawari after inspection and any change in existing Girdawari is also entered in a separate Register and duly verified

Such entries of Register Girdawari are entered in Register Haqdaran Zamin and after preparation of Register Haqdaran Zamin, the Register Girdawariis destroyed after twelve years

Petitioners / plaintiffs challenged entries of Register Girdawari of the years 1971-72 through instituting suit in year 1996

Petitioners / plaintiffs challenged such entries after 25 years when relevant record had already been destroyed

Record of rights was prepared first time after resumption and allotment of suit land

Suit property was already allotted through allotment order dated 15-07-1974 but as the mutation in that regard had not been attested, therefore, Provincial Government was shown as owner and the grantee in the column of cultivation as "Attia Dar"

Name of petitioners / plaintiffs were also mentioned in relevant column but their names were mentioned as tenants-at-will meaning thereby they were tenants of "Attia Dar" i.e. the grantee

Petitioners / plaintiffs were not shown as tenants under the previous grantee from whom the suit property was resumed

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court, as the petitioners / plaintiffs failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, mis-reading, non-reading of evidence or jurisdictional defect

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

During appeal, petitioners/defendants sought permission to adduce additional evidence but Lower Appellate Court declined the request

Validity

Where interest of justice and requirement of Court in adjudicating on the matter demand that such additional evidence is necessary, then the same should be allowed and recorded

Courts are not denuded of the power to summon all necessary record and also to summon witnesses so as to supply omissions from both sides

If a piece of evidence is relevant and pertinent for the decision of any issue, and it is genuine and reliable, it should not be stopped from being brought on record merely because in process employed for collection of material an irregularity or an illegality was committed

Concept of bar against filling gaps is no more available in jurisprudence of Pakistan

Courts should collect and record evidence which is authentic, consistent with pleadings and relevant to findings so as to advance and do complete justice between the parties

Interest of justice demanded that petitioners/defendant could have been allowed to bring on record documents as well as oral evidence which were otherwise of unimpeachable authenticity for resolving controversy and meeting ends of justice

Lower Appellate Court failed to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with law by disallowing the application

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside order passed by Lower Appellate Court and allowed application for additional evidence filed by petitioners/defendants

High Court directed Lower Appellate Court to record additional evidence of petitioners/defendants and respondents/plaintiffs would have a right to produce any lawful evidence in rebuttal

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land having property rights issued in his favour but authorities illegally passed resumption order

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decided suit and appeal against petitioner/plaintiff

Validity

Once sale price was deposited and possession was handed over to allottees by Collector, no other Revenue Authorities, even superior to the Collector, could intervene to reverse Collector's decision

If allotment was cancelled by Revenue Appellate Court, Civil Court had jurisdiction to set aside such cancellation, especially if it was found to be in violation of terms of sale or the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Board of Revenue was not equipped with any authority even to cancel allotment in favour of petitioner/plaintiff, once the price was received and sale deed had been executed

Where transferee had conveyed land to a bona fide purchaser, the power to resume land, for which proprietary rights had already been granted, could not be exercised

After confirmation of proprietary rights and registration of conveyance deed, allottee would become absolute owner of the land

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff company was award-debtor, and resisted enforcement of foreign award on the plea that it was in violation of public policy issued by State Bank of Pakistan

Validity

If plaintiff company (award-debtor) had any objections to recognition and enforcement of the award, it could raise the same in Enforcement Suit and suit of plaintiff company (award-debtor) seeking declaration and permanent injunctions of the award was not maintainable in light of Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011 and New York Convention

Question relating to maintainability of "Suit for Declaration and Permanent Injunction" was a question of law and had to be dealt with first before delineating questions of merits of the case

Legal challenge to the award raised by plaintiff company, including in terms of Art. V (2) of New York Convention, had to be in separate proceedings, and not under award-creditor's suit

Plaintiff company, did not submit on factual plane and avoided touching upon merits of the case and taking steps that could later prejudice his defence in other suit

Plaintiff company strategically saved his attack on the award under Art. V of New York Convention to plead in defendant's (award-creditor's) suit

Defendant (award-creditor) also did not commit himself and face its consequences in other suit seeking the recognition and enforcement of award

Parties did not draw themselves into any discussion about whether the award was contrary to public policy, or what constituted "public policy" under Art. V of New York Convention

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in the Award as there was no violation of the grounds enshrined under Article V (2) of New York Convention

Suit filed by plaintiff company was not maintainable under Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011

Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plaintiff / company was aggrieved of issuance of Letter of Award in favour of defendant / company, despite reversal of decision of Procurement Committee by Complaints Redressal Committee (CRC)

Validity

Review Committee disagreed with the CRC and the Project Consultant that deviations in the bidding documents of plaintiff / company were minor

As per Review Committee, the deviations were of mandatory requirements but Review Committee did not notice relevant clause of bidding documents and Regulation No. 7.6(B)(i)(2) of Procurement Regulations (Works) had already classified which deviations were to be treated as minor and which ones as major

As per evaluation report of Project Consultant even bidding documents submitted by defendant / company were with similar minor deviations

Without discussing report of Project Consultant, the Procurement Committee had proceeded to award the contract to the defendant / company, who had quoted the highest price for the Project

Such material aspect of the matter was ignored by Review Committee

Even if the order passed by Review Committee was within its jurisdiction, it was prima facie the result of misreading of record and an erroneous interpretation of the Sindh Public Procurement Rules, 2010

High Court confirmed interim injunction already passed in favour of plaintiff / company

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

Karachi Development Authority Order (V of 1957), Art. 52-A [as amended by Karachi Development Authority (Sindh Amendment) Act, 1994]

Suit for declaration and injunction

Amenity plot

Nature, changing of

Applicant / defendant was a Cooperative Society which had established family park over an amenity plot

Respondents / plaintiffs claimed to be the allottees of suit land after nature of suit land was converted from amenity to residential

Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of respondents / plaintiffs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court

Validity

Amendments in Art.52-A of Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957 were applicable, because conversion permission granted by the Authorities was of subsequent date

Conversion and sub-division of suit land was illegal from its inception

Authorities illegally converted land use, from amenity to residential, coupled with the fact that no construction was ever raised on suit land by respondents / plaintiffs

By operation of law when suit land was reverted to respondent / Society, thereafter it was allotted to applicant / Society

Applicant/ Society restored its original amenity purpose and suit land was utilized as family park for the residents of the vicinity

When suit was filed by respondents / plaintiffs, it was not maintainable

High Court set aside both the decisions passed by two Courts below and suit filed by respondents / plaintiff was dismissed

Revision was allowed accordingly.

Applicant/National Database and Registration Authority was aggrieved of concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below whereby suit and appeal were decided in favour of respondent/plaintiff

Respondent/plaintiff was an adopted child and applicant/Authority had denied issuance of CNIC to him

Validity

There is no provision under National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000, under which applicant/Authority is authorized or vested with any powers to not register an adoptee

Applicant/Authority can take help from S. 47 of National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 which deals with removal of difficulties

Applicant/ Authority had shown its willingness to issue CNIC to respondent/ plaintiff by mentioning name of his adopting father and name of mother as blank/Not applicable

Revision was disposed of accordingly.

Applicant / plaintiff was aggrieved of dismissal of his suit and appeal by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively on the ground of res judicata

Validity

Term "finally decided by such Court" implies that matter in question has been conclusively resolved by a competent Court in previous litigation

Such final decision is binding and cannot be disputed in subsequent suits

Principle of res judicata serves to prevent re-litigation of same issue, thereby ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency in legal decisions

Res judicata is a fundamental concept in administration of justice, designed to prevent endless continuation of legal disputes

Concurrent findings against applicant / plaintiff were not based on factual discrepancies but rather on legal interpretations

Such distinction was crucial, as it underscored the fact that issue was not one of differing perspectives on facts, rather a fundamental disagreement on the application and interpretation of law

Such disagreement was not trivial; it was of such magnitude that it had warranted attention and intervention of revisional jurisdiction of High Court

Applicant's / plaintiff's rights and interests were at stake, and it was duty of revisional Court to ensure that justice was served, not just in letter but in spirit as well

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, set aside concurrent findings against applicant / plaintiff, as it was imperative to intervene and rectify the situation, ensuring that law was applied correctly and justice was duly served

High Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to decide suit of applicant/plaintiff on merits in accordance with law

Revision was allowed accordingly.