Judicial Proceedings

Petitioner claimed that he and his counsel did not give any consent for disposal of the said revision application and to challenge such order filed a review application before the High Court, but the same was dismissed

Validity

No ground whatsoever for seeking review of an error apparent from record or in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge of Sindh High Court in the revision application had been agitated rather, there was a serious allegation that consent of the parties had been wrongly recorded by the Judge of High Court, thus disputing the judicial order and the proceedings however, without any evidence, material or formal affidavit of the petitioner or of the counsel who was present in Court along with counsel for respondent

It is settled legal position that presumption of correctness and sanctity is attached to all judicial proceedings, orders, decisions and the judgments passed by the Courts, whereas, the same can be assailed by an aggrieved party by filing appeal, revision as may be provided in accordance with law

However, in exceptional cases, any order or judgment passed by the competent Court of jurisdiction, or any proceedings can be subjected to review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C. and Section 114 read with Section 151 C.P.C. by showing some error on the face of the record and the impugned order/decision sought to be reviewed, which otherwise could be rectified without reappraisal of the evidence or re-examination of the merits of the case

Whereas, in the instant case no error of such nature had been pointed out except an allegation to the effect that the counsel representing the petitioner did not give any consent for disposal of the revision application, however, such allegation was not duly supported by affidavit to this effect by the counsel, therefore, could not be a ground or basis for seeking review of the consent order

Single Judge of High Court had rightly dismissed the review application vide impugned order

Civil petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

Assertion of attorney of the (late) defendant that he had neither entered into a compromise nor had appeared before a Court of law was nothing but an after thought on his part

Said attorney had admitted that it was he who had been hiring the counsel right from the Trial Court to the Supreme Court, as an attorney on behalf of the defendant, but stated that he had never asked from those counsel, appointed by him, about the fate of those matters, which appeared to be an unbelievable story

When the attorney was asked by the Trial Court regarding the whereabouts of the original Power of Attorney, he stated that he had no knowledge about the same but strangely enough submitted that the signatures on the photocopy of the Power of Attorney, produced as secondary evidence before the trial Court, were not his, which, created heavy doubts about the veracity of the statements made by him

It was also strange to note that the defendant passed away in the year 1988, whereas the compromise was entered in the year 1979, and he never uttered a single word during his lifetime either with regard to the veracity of the compromise entered by his attorney before the Court or with regard to the genuineness of the Power of Attorney given by him in his lifetime to the attorney and it was only after his death that his legal heirs filed the applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. questioning the compromise or lesser payment of Zar-e-Shufa by agitating that the decree obtained by the (late) appellant/plaintiff was by way of fraud or misrepresentation

It was also strange on the part of the legal heirs of the defendant or for that matter his brother, that they kept mum for a number of years i.e. 1979 to 1987 and, thereafter, agitated the matter either by filing of a suit for possession or through applications under section 12(2), C.P.C. claiming possession over suit land without realizing that the matter with regard to possession and ownership of the land comprising part of the suit land had already been laid to rest in an earlier round of litigation

Appellants were successful in showing that the findings arrived at by the fora below were erroneous, especially in view of the sanctity attached to the compromise entered before a Judge of the High Court

Appeals were allowed and respondents were restrained from interfering and dispossessing the appellants from the suit land or any building constructed by them on such land.

Applications under S.12(2) of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), filed in consolidated order passed in three Civil Revisions which were dismissed on the basis of a compromise arrived between the parties

Validity

In the relevant paragraph of the applications under S.12(2), C.P.C., applicant asserted, in uniform language, to the effect that no compromise was ever struck between the partieswhich indicated that neither assertion for want of jurisdiction had been levelled nor any fraud had been stated to have been played with the Court ;rather, it had been asserted that neither the applicant nor his counsel signed/thumb marked the order and in fact the matter was part heard and file was kept pending and later on, respondents misled the Court

Thumb mark or the signatures

The counsel for the applicant is not a mandatory requirement of the law in such like situation where the party is duly represented by his legal counsel who filed the petition and has been pursuing the same since the filing thereof

Therefore, said ground did not fall under the purview of S.12(2), C.P.C., as sanctity is attached to judicial proceedings

Applications under S.12(2), C.P.C., filed in consolidated order of three Civil Revisions by the revision petitioner, were dismissed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that a clear condition of furnishing security bond with specific reference of the date for its compliance was unambiguous and explicit therein but even then for about nine and half months the proceedings remained pending adjudication before the Trial Court and the appellant had never intended to fulfill such direction

Contention of the appellant regarding ignorance regarding conditional order could not be given preference because the presumption of truth is attached to the judicial proceedings

Plea of ignorance of law could not be construed or sustained as a bona fide excuse

Provision of the Art. 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided presumption of regularity to all acts performed in a judicial proceedings

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that a clear condition of furnishing security bond with specific reference of the date for its compliance was unambiguous and explicit therein but even then for about nine and half months the proceedings remained pending adjudication before the Trial Court and the appellant had never intended to fulfill such direction

Contention of the appellant regarding ignorance regarding conditional order could not be given preference because the presumption of truth is attached to the judicial proceedings

Plea of ignorance of law could not be construed or sustained as a bona fide excuse

Provision of the Art. 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 provided presumption of regularity to all acts performed in a judicial proceedings

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Section 6, Cr.P.C., stipulates that in addition to the High Court and the courts constituted under different laws for the time being in force, there shall be two classes of criminal courts in Pakistan, namely, the Courts of Sessions and the Courts of Magistrates

Latter have three classes

Code defines the expression "judicial proceeding" only in S. 4(1)(m), Cr.P.C. and states that it includes any proceeding in the course of which evidence as or may legally be taken on oath

The definitions of "Judge" and "Court of Justice" in Ss. 19 & 20 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, are incorporated in it by reference through S. 4(2), Cr.P.C.

Such presumption is attached to judicial proceedings, and strong and unimpeachable evidence is required to rebut such presumption.

Judicial proceedings include any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath.

Strong presumption of correctness and sanctity of high order is attached to judicial proceedings and records and to outweigh the same, strong and unimpeachable evidence is required.

Consent of the Advocate General required under S. 29 of the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001, is a substantive function in order to ensure that the objectives of the Ordinance are achieved

Legislature in its wisdom has created a first level of inquiry through the Advocate General's office to ensure that the application as well as the fact that prima facie there is a case to be placed before the Court of Protection

Such heightened protection is given to protect a person who cannot coherently protect his or her rights or property.

Presumption of correctness was attached to judicial proceedings, and strong and unimpeachable evidence was required to rebut such presumption.

Contention of petitioners was that their counsel, without any authority or permission got recorded his statement for withdrawal of the suit

Validity

Counsel for the applicants was duly appointed counsel in the suit, who was vested with the authority to do any act on their behalf

Statement of counsel was recorded who appended his signature in token of correctness of the same

Said statement was binding upon the applicants in circumstances

Authority of a pleader duly appointed by a person to act on his/her behalf in a Court would be deemed to be in force until determined with the leave of the Court by a writing signed by the client or pleader and filed in Court or until client or the pleader died or until all proceedings in the suit ended

Party was bound by the statement of his counsel unless there was contrary in the power of attorney placing restriction on the authority of counsel to compromise or abandon the claim on behalf of his client

Suit was decided with the consent of the parties on the basis of statement of counsel for the applicants

Such a consenting order/decree was not appealable in terms of S.96, C.P.C.

Appeal against the order of withdrawal of suit was not maintainable in circumstances

Nothing was on record that statement recorded by the counsel on behalf of applicants lacked authority

Presumption of truth was attached to the judicial proceedings which could not be altered or swayed at the whims of the parties

Applicants had approached the Court with mala fide intention and their act of accusing their duly appointed counsel would give a bad taste to the legal profession

Appellate Court had rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the applicants

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below

Revision was dismissed with costs in circumstances.

Sanctity attached to judicial proceedings is much higher than statement of individual wherein presumption of truth is always attached to judicial proceedings.

Judicial proceedings had presumption of genuineness and truth.

Presumption of truth was attached to the judicial proceedings but when such proceedings were challenged, beneficiary was required to prove the same.

Contention of plaintiffs was that gift mutation sanctioned through consent decree was illegal, void and ineffective upon their rights

Suit was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Nothing was on record as to when, where and before whom declaration of gift was made by the donor which was accepted by the donee and possession was delivered in lieu thereof

Oral gift was permissible but same was required to be proved by production of persuasive and trustworthy evidence

Trial Court proceeded to decree the suit merely on the basis of conceding written statement as well as conceding statement of donor without taking precautionary measures whether all such proceedings were being conducted without any coercion or misrepresentation on the part of donor-lady

Consent decree being an agreement between the parties to the lis when brought under challenge was required to be proved by beneficiary through production of convincing and cogent evidence

Trial Court without issuance of summons to the rival party for any further date of hearing received written statement of defendant-donor and after recording her conceding statement suit was decreed on the same day

Identification of a lady by the advocate before the court who had not been engaged through execution of power of attorney would have no sanctity in the eye of law

No other independent advice was available to the donor who was an illiterate and old age folk lady

Gift mutation for its completion required independent witnesses and identifiers which were not available to the donee in the present case

Principles.

Sanctity was attached to judicial proceedings.

Purpose of entire judicial proceedings is to find out truth and to arrive at correct decision.

Judge should accord fair and proper hearing to person sought to be affected by his orders and give sufficiently clear and explicit reasons in support of orders made by him

Such right has become a fundamental right under Art.10A of the Constitution.

Judicial proceedings are blessed with presumption of truth and court is bound to believe judicial record.

Court record has the sanctity over any other material to the contrary unless strong and unimpeachable evidence was brought on the record in the rebuttal of the same.

Such proceedings have the precedence over affidavits of the litigant or counsel of such litigant to the contrary.

Appellate Tribunal is vested with power/authority to call for any evidence and summon any person when particularly prayed for by another contending party on its own for reaching to a proper conclusion for holding a judicious view

Calling for affidavit and or counter -affidavit which authority could be exercised as Appellate Tribunal is empowered under specific provisions of Qanun­e-Shahadat, 1984 and Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

Facts which could not be borne out from record were to be supported by affidavit and to challenge the contents of such affidavit, counter-affidavit could be submitted do its own by opposing party or on specific directions of the Appellate Tribunal for arriving at just conclusion, so Appellate Tribunal could also order for submission of counter-affidavit

Such powers were vested in the Appellate Tribunal firstly by drawing force from the provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 which had specifically been made applicable to the Appellate Tribunal

Proceedings under the erstwhile and also under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 were judicial proceedings as per provisions contained in S.158 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.

Such proceedings cannot be valid unless they proceed upon inquiry and render judgment only after trial.

Hardly a ground to be urged in support of application prying for summoning of Witnesses-Appellant even if having a valid grievance against conduct of trial by Court, held, ought not have boycotted proceedings but should have placed on record his written objections pinpointing his reasons for his apprehension of not getting a fair trial-Even otherwise, held further, object of summoning such witnesses effectively achieved due to witnesses having produced desired ammunition vouchers and being extensively crossexamined on behalf of appellant.-[Words and phrases-Witness

Practice and procedure].

Observations made in a judicial order-Held, bind parties to proceedings and not third parties.-Observations made in a judicial order-Held, bind parties to proceedings and not third parties.

Observations made in a judicial order-Held, bind only parties to such proceedings and not third parties.-[Practice and procedure].

Bias-Chairman, Federal Land Commission-Acts quasi-judicially in proceedings under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and has to act according to law-Chairman, Federal Land Commission in his capacity as Minister making speeches against particular persons including petitioners and such speeches extremely surcharged with emotions of hatred, inter alia, for petitioners

Chairman, though conversant with law, taking extraordinary extreme step of having notice against petitioners published in newspapers in first instance and not getting service effected through process-server or registered post and giving only, two clear days to petitioners to appear and defend their case and not mentioning charges required to be met, held, such facts presented a clear picture of bias in Chairman.-[Bias].

The definition of "judicial proceeding" in section 4 (m), Criminal Procedure Code applies to proceedings under that Code. No other definition is to be found in Pakistan law. An inquiry, however is judicial if the object of it is to determine a jural relation between one person and another or a group of persons or between him and the State representing the community. Generally speaking a person performs judicial functions if he is enjoined by the law to adjudicate upon and determine, as between the parties, some controversy relating to the existence or non-existence of a right or liability, whether such right or liability be the creation of common law or statute, provided the right or liability is actionable either under the general law or special law, and the duty to determine the controversy is derived from the State and rests on the ascertainment, with notice and opportunity to parties, of the facts and the law applicable to them and not on policy, expediency or some other extraneous consideration.

Judicial Proceedings Violation of by Customs Collector by omitting to disclose report of Mint Assayer on fineness of gold seized-Ground for writ petition Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 170-Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878), S. 167 (81).