Admitted fact

2026 CLC 283 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 39, 42 & 54Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.30 & 113Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115Suit for cancellation of document, declaration and injunctionConcurrent findings of facts by two Courts belowAdmitted factFraud, effect of

Petitioners / plaintiffs assailed sale deed on the plea that attorney appointed by their deceased father executed sale deed after the power of attorney was revoked

Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by petitioners / plaintiffs

Validity

Respondents / defendants were well aware about the fact that late father of petitioners / defendants moved for revocation of general power of attorney through written instrument and the same was registered with Sub-Registrar concerned

Such fact mentioned in written statement filed by respondents / defendants fulfilled conditions of an admission as envisaged under Art. 30 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Admitted fact need not to be proved

Attorney failed to give any justification for transfer of land in favour of defendant / his real brother on the basis of general power of attorney, which was revoked on the date when sale deed was allegedly executed

If the transaction could have been executed in the name of somebody else, the position would have been different

There was inter-se connivance of respondents / defendants who were real brothers, just to deprive late father of petitioners / plaintiffs of his property through a sham transaction

Fraud vitiated even solemn proceedings and acts of respondents / defendants stood proof of the fact that their conduct towards execution of sale deed was not above board

To prove a valid alienation it was incumbent upon vendee(s) to establish offer for sale by vendor; acceptance of offer by vendee; payment of amount of consideration and transfer of possession

No proof regarding payment of consideration amount was brought on record by respondents / defendants

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent findings of facts, and judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below were set aside; resultantly suit filed by petitioners / plaintiffs was decreed in their favour

Revision was allowed accordingly.

2022 YLR 572 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 18Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XIV, R.1Admitted factEffect

Fact admitted in written statement does not need further proof.

2021 CLD 386 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 10 & 37(2)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 113False and misleading informationDeceptive marketing practiceAdmitted factIgnorance of lawEffect

Complainant alleged that respondent was fraudulently using its logo, packaging, colour scheme, design and get up, to deceive consumers

Enquiry Committee recommended initiating of proceedings against respondent

Validity

All orders issued by Competition Commission for violation of S. 10 of Competition Act, 2010, were not only placed on website for information of general public but were also publicized in newspapers for information of consumers and stakeholders

Taking defence of ignorance of law was not justifiable

Respondent was well aware about existence of Competition Act, 2010, and goodwill of complainant

Competition Commission turned down such defence as it had no force

In presence of clear and unambiguous admission on behalf of respondent and in accordance with the principle enshrined under Art. 113 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, fact admitted were not to be proved

Violation of S. 10(1) of Competition Act, 2010 by respondent was proved and did not require any further deliberation

Competition Commission to protect consumers from anti-competitive behaviour, including deceptive marketing practice imposed token penalty

Complaint was allowed accordingly.

2020 PLC(CS) 996 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S.36(2)Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 113Recovery of arrearsAdmitted factsDocumentary evidencePhotocopiesObjectionStage

Plaintiff who was transferred to the company (PTCL) pursuant to S.36(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996 sought recovery of arrears due during his service as he refused to accept "Voluntary Separation Scheme" as introduced by the defendant company

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

Validity

All the documents were issued by defendant company and original thereof could not be in the possession of plaintiff

All marked documents except an agreement between defendant and Government of Pakistan, were admitted by witness of defendant company during his cross-examination

Such documents which were expressly admitted by defendant company could not have been questioned at appellate stage

High Court was not precluded / prevented from taking into account the admitted documents, which were available on record as "Marked Documents" and most of the documents were part and parcel of official record of defendant company

When the documents were presented by plaintiff during his examination-in-chief, there was not a single objection from the other side upon presentation / placing of those documents on record

Any office order or document issued by defendant company which adversely affect any privilege, facility for which plaintiff was entitled, had no force in the light of saving clause i.e. S.36(2) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside findings of Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Revision was allowed in circumstances.

2013 CLC 131 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 113Admitted factScope

Facts admitted by other party need not to be proved as required by law.

2013 CLC 131 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 13Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.113Suit for pre-emptionTalb-e-Ishhad, noticeProofAdmitted fact

Both the courts below concurrently dismissed suit filed by pre-emptor on the ground that he failed to prove issuance of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad

Plea raised by pre-emptor was that when vendees had admitted receipt of notice of Talb-e-Ishhad, then there was no need to prove the admitted fact

Validity

Production of two witnesses was required in a case where vendees refused to admit performance of Talb-e-Ishhad or deny any service of notice upon them

Pre-emptor, in such case was to produce witnesses who signed the notice and also to prove its dispatch by producing receipts and also acknowledgement due and the postman to show effect of service upon vendees

Vendees themselves, by producing notice in original, had admitted factum of Talb-e-Ishhad, therefore, there was no need to produce any witness to prove performance of Talb-e-Ishhad

High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, set aside concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below and decreed the suit in favour of pre-emptor subject to payment of balance price

Revision was allowed in circumstances.