Judicial record

2019 PLD 717 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 42Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 3Suit for declarationLimitationEstoppel, principle ofApplicabilityScopeGeneral power of attorneyJudicial recordPresumption of correctnessSuit property was transferred through general attorney which was not challenged by the principal during his life time

Contention of plaintiffs was that impugned mutation and subsequent transactions were based on fraud and misrepresentation

Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs survived for fifteen years after attestation of impugned mutation but he did not assail the same during his life time

If any authority was not conferred upon the agent but subsequently it was acknowledged by the principal then it carried value in the eye of law

Conduct of predecessor-in-interest was sufficient to prove that he was not claiming the ownership of suit property

Principle of estoppel was applicable in the present case

Judicial record had presumption of correctness and did not require any proof

Decision of Court of competent jurisdiction could not be equated as at par with the statement of witness

Present suit had been filed after twenty eight years and same was time barred

Any suit instituted beyond the statutory period was to be dismissed

Jurisdiction of Court would depend on law of limitation

If proceedings before the Court were beyond the scope of limitation then it could not assume jurisdiction

Plaintiffs had failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

2018 YLR 487 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 6 & 5Suit for possession through partitionNon-filing of written statementEffectJudicial recordScopeDefendants did not file written statement and their right to submit written statement was struck offContention of defendants was that only one opportunity to file written statement was givenValidity

Defendant in a partition suit was required to file written statement within thirty days commencing from the date of his first appearance in the Court subject to receipt of notice/summon

Petitioner-defendant appeared on 04-02-2014 whereas other defendant put appearance before the Court on 25-02-2014

Defendants were required to file written statement by 06-03-2014 and 27-03-2014 respectively

Petitioners did not file written statement till 25-07-2016 despite direction and warning that no further opportunity would be granted for filing written statement

Provision of S.6 of Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2013 was mandatory

When timeframe for doing something had been prescribed by law, it should be followed stricto sensu and no time extension should be given unless there was some lawful justification

No plausible reason or justification could be produced by the petitioners for extension of time for filing the written statement

Judicial record having legal sanctity would prevail over the verbal assertions of defendants

Petitioners did not comply with the mandatory provision of law as well as order of the Court and their right to file written statement was rightly closed

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 PLD 31 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Arts. 87 & 85High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol. V, Chap.5, Part BConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionSupply of certified copies of recordPublic documentScopeJudicial recordScopePreliminary inquiry conducted by judicial officer regarding missing of a file from record of courtReport submitted in court after conducting of preliminary inquiry

Application submitted by petitioner for supply of certified copies of inquiry proceedings dismissed by District Judge on the basis that only preliminary inquiry was conducted and a report was submitted, whereas orders were passed for a regular inquiry, therefore, inquiry had not yet been concluded and at such stage petitioner had no right to inspect any document relating to inquiry proceedings

Contention on behalf of petitioner was that in terms of Art.85 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 a 'judicial inquiry' came within the definition of a public document; that in view of Art.87 of the said Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 every public officer having custody of a public document, which a person had a right to inspect, should give that person on demand a copy of such document

Validity

Inquiry conducted by a judicial officer regarding missing of a file or negligence or omission/commission of an act by an official of the District Court could not be termed as a judicial inquiry, rather, such inquiry was conducted in pursuance of the administrative order passed by the authority concerned

Part B, Chapter 5, Rules and Orders High Court (Lahore), Volume V provided that a copy or translation of a judicial record might be granted in the manner prescribed by the rules to any person who was legally entitled to receive it, whereas in the present case, inquiry proceedings, which had not yet been concluded, could not be termed as judicial record

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.