Determination of benami transaction:-

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Majeed and others v. Amir Muhammad and others (2005 SCMR 577) laid down the guidelines/essentials to be taken into consideration for determination of benami transaction:-

(i) source of consideration.
(ii) from whose custody the original title deed and other documents came in evidence;
(iii) who is in possession of the suit property; and (iv) motive for the Benami transaction.

Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
4894/20
2020 LHC 263

In section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,

The objection as to the demolition of structure or its removal by the judgment-debtor is totally misconceived. In “Noor Muhammad Khan v. Haji Muhammad Ali Khan and 24 others” (PLD 1973 SC 218) it was ruled by the August Supreme Court as follows:

“…In section 13 of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, the word used is “eviction” and the “eviction” would include the removal of super-structure also”

Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
1643006.1399-14
2018 LHC 3512

Notice was actually sent to him at the right address and he received it or refused to receive

This omission was fatal. In this regard reference to the case of Bashir Ahmad v. Ghulam Rasool (2010 SCJ 643) would be appropriate wherein it was held that it was the duty of the pre-emptor to have produced the postman through whom notice was allegedly got served upon the vendee to prove that notice was actually sent to him at the right address and he received it or refused to receive it; and, that in order to establish Talb-i-Ishhad the pre-emptor has to prove that notice was sent to the vendee through registered post acknowledge due card and its acknowledgment receipt was received by the pre-emptor after its service on the vendee. This principle has been reiterated in the case of Basharat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Akbar (2017 SCMR 309).

Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
194717/18
2020 LHC 311

Executing Court cannot rectify any mistake in decree which would tantamount to going behind decree”

 In “Sardar Ahmad Yar Khan Jogezai and 2 others v Province of Balochistan through Secretary C & W Department” (2002 SCMR 122), it was ruled by the August Supreme Court that:

“An in depth scrutiny of the entire record would reveal that judgment/decree passed by learned High Court on 04-11-1985 had attained finality and furthermore the modification as allowed vide said judgment/decree was free from any ambiguity and accordingly the question of any clarification by the executing Court does not arise. The learned executing Court has modified the decree which had already attained finality by means of order, dated 13-4-1989 … A bare perusal would reveal that “simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decrees” as awarded by the learned High Court vide judgment/decree dated 04-11-1985 was substituted by holding that “the decree holders are entitled to the awarded amount, work plus interest awarded added thereto from 1960 to the date of application with the rate of interest given in the award and till the date of the decrees dated 21-5-1977 and thereafter till the realization of the whole decretal amount at 6% per annum with simple interest”. The said substitution or drastic amendment could not have been made by the learned Executing Court which in fact amounts to a futile attempt to frustrate the object of judgment and decree dated 4-11-1985 which had already attained finality and thus the order dated 13-4-1989 passed by the learned District Judge Loralai (executing court) is arbitrary, capricious and corum non judice. It worth mentioning that executing court could not go beyond the decree. It is well-settled by now that “when decree passed attained finality it had got to be executed even if it was erroneously passed. Executing Court cannot rectify any mistake in decree which would tantamount to going behind decree” … A court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree; it must take the decree as it stands, for the decree is binding and conclusive between the parties to the suit…”

Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
1643006.1399-14
2018 LHC 3512

Respondent asserted in the writ petition that the allotment was made in his favour

13. Furthermore, the respondent asserted in the writ petition that the allotment was made in his favour in the year 1953 whereas he filed Writ Petition for implementation of said order in the year 1991 i.e. after lapse of about 38 years rather he remained mum for a period of four decades and did not agitate the matter before competent forum, as such, principle of laches is also fully applicable upon this case. Reliance is placed on the cases titled of State Bank of Pakistan through Governor & Another Vs. Imtiaz Ali Khan & Others (2012 SCMR 280), Messrs Blue Star Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Collector of Sales Tax & Others (2013 SCMR 587), Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali Vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi (2014 SCMR 1594) and Iqbal Ahmad & Others Vs. Government of Sindh through Secretary & Others (PLD 2007 Karachi 353).

Used in Judgment of
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Land
3263/19
2020 LHC 781

Procedure was provided under S. 144 C.P.C.,

Court must remedy injury or wrong done to a party because of order of court---Procedure was provided under S. 144 C.P.C., while power to order restitution was inherent in court and should be exercised whenever justice demanded---Present was not a case of restoration of possession but of restitution of possession because order of revenue authority regarding dispossession was set aside by appellate authority declaring the same to be illegal and without jurisdiction.


Parvaiz             Versus        Muhammad Ramzan
2009 CLC 513
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

Illiterate lady particularly when she was placed in circumstances which made her vulnerable to deceit misrepresentation

In “Mian Allah Ditta through LRs. v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others” (2013 SCMR 868) it was ruled by the August Supreme Court that

“…the contention that the general power of attorney was given by the respondent/plaintiff not to a stranger but to her own son-in-law and that she was not a paradanashin lady” for which the courts of law have provided protection is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case first, because it is in evidence that the relations between the two were too strained on account of the discord between him and her daughter and in the normal course of events she could not have reposed that kind of trust; second, the protection provided to them in law is on account of the fact that they invariably are helpless, weak and vulnerable. The said consideration would equally be attracted to an illiterate lady particularly when she was placed in circumstances which made her vulnerable to deceit misrepresentation…”

Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
1641981.1354-14
2018 LHC 3624

Duty of Court

Courts are required to do substantial justice-one form of proceedings, in the interest of the justice may be treated as another Revisions, appeals and constitutional petitions have to be treated one or the other, interchangeably, to meet the end of the justice

1989 CLC 1949 (KARACHI)
1980 CLC 930

Deceased landowner could not be deprived of their right in property left by deceased

 In Mst. Shahro and others v. Mst. Fatima and others (PLD 1998 Supreme Court 1512), it was invariably held:
‘Plaintiffs being female heirs of deceased landowner could not be deprived of their right in property left by deceased by illegal mutation sanctioned at the behest of male heirs.’

 In the said judgment, it was further held that:-

‘It has been held in several decisions by this court and is now well-settled that possession of one cosharer or co-owner is for benefit of all other cosharers and the mere fact that mutations had been attested in favour of some of the co-sharers should not extinguish the title of the other co-sharers. It has also been held, time and again, that entries in the revenue record of rights do not create or extinguish title but are a mere evidence thereof. In Ghulam Ali’s case (Supra) it had been held that adverse entries in the revenue record and non-participation in the profits in the property would not amount to ouster of the co-sharers as wrong mutation confer no right in property, the revenue record being maintained only have the purpose of ensuring realization of land revenue.’

Part of Judgement of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
1047369.1505-09
2018 LHC 1404

Revision petition suffering from some defect, i.e. non-filing of pleadings, could not be dismissed being barred by time and at the best, it could be treated as being not maintainable

10. Another contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the revision petition suffering from some defect, i.e. non-filing of pleadings, could not be dismissed being barred by time and at the best, it could be treated as being not maintainable. In this regard, he has relied upon the law laid down by the apex court in case Mst. Sabiran Bi. V. Ahmad Khan and another (2000 SCMR 847). In the same judgment, it has been held that: “Learned counsel also relied on 1992 CLC 296, PLD 1996 Lahore 158, PLD 1996 SC 706 and 1997 SCMR 1224 but in our opinion these judgments are distinguishable on facts from the case in hand because in the reported judgment the memos. of petitioners/appeals were handed over by Deputy Registrar to the Advocate for the purposes of removing office objections within the time fixed for this purpose but they did not adhere to the time and refiled petitions etc. after considerable delay. Thus, the Court concluded that in such situation the petitioners are time barred; whereas in the instant case the prominent distinction is that memo. of petition was never handed over to the counsel for petitioner for removing office objections.”

(Emphasis provided)

Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
214918/18
2018 LHC 1092

Inherit in accordance with Muslim Law whether they were male or female heirs.

Apart from this, in Mst. Fazal Nishan and others v. Ghulam Qadir and others (1992 SCMR 1773), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-

‘Last full owner (deceased) having acquired agricultural land under custom from a Muslim prior to 15 March 1948, would be deemed to have inherited under Muslim Personal Law; his heirs after his death would inherit in accordance with Muslim Law whether they were male or female heirs.’

Part of Judgement of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
1047369.1505-09
2018 LHC 1404

Second appeal brought before high court exhibiting

Second appeal brought before high court exhibiting  certain features which demonstrated that it fell within scope of interference under sec.115 CPC-high court should in such cases, exercise its jurisdiction under said provision of law-high court, held, should have allowed conversion of said second appeal into revision and then proceeded to see ……


PLD 1987 SC 139

Impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC

9. During pendency of the instant civil revision, Zulfiqar Ahmad an Asim Nisar filed C.M.No.6-C of 2016 seeking their impleadment under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC, claiming themselves to be bona fide purchasers with value without notice of some portion of the disputed land. The said application has been resisted by the revision petitioners. It is evident from the record the applicants namely Zulfiqar Ahmad and Asim Nisar purchased the land in dispute during pendency of the proceedings in the suit, thus, the transaction is hit by doctrine of lis pendens and the applicants are not necessary party, because they will step into the shoes of their vendors. Thus, by placing reliance on 2008 SCMR 1024 and PLD 1993 SC 292, the application bearing No.C.M.6-C of 2016 stands dismissed.

Part of Judgement of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
1047369.1505-09
2018 LHC 1404

Inherited the property not under custom with limitations on his powers to transfer

Same is the situation with case law reported as Mst. Ghulam Janat and others v. Ghlam Janat through legal heirs and others (2003 SCMR 362), rather in this judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court of the country further held:-

‘Under section 2-A, it was declared that a male heir of deceased Muslim will be deemed to be full owner thereof meaning thereby that he shall be deemed to have inherited the property not under custom with limitations on his powers to transfer but under the Mohammadan Law, as such, he was deemed to have inherited the property under Mohammadan Law as a consequence of which he could not be held to have acquired ownership rights in the entire estate but shall have to be deemed to be the full owner to the extent of his share.’

Part of Judgement of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
1047369.1505-09
2018 LHC 1404

When there appears no misreading and nonreading of evidence,

6. Pursuant to the above discussion, both the learned Courts have rightly evaluated evidence on record and have reached to a just conclusion, concurrently, that the plaintiffs/ respondents are entitled to inherit the land owned by Muhammad Shah deceased and when there appears no misreading and nonreading of evidence, the concurrent findings on facts, howsoever erroneous, cannot be interfered with as has been held in judgments reported as Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. (2017 SCMR 679), Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another (2014 SCMR 1469) and CANTONMENT BOARD through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. IKHLAQ AHMED and others (2014 SCMR 161).

Part of Judgement of
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
1047369.1505-09
2018 LHC 1404

Civil revision was filed within time , but the Office raised objection thereupon and returned

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia submits that the civil revision was filed within time on 21.03.2018 but the Office raised objection thereupon and returned the same to the petitioners and compelled the petitioners to prepare Paper Books in which a lot of time was consumed and after doing the needful, the civil revision was re-filed on 25.05.2018. He contends that since the revision petition was filed within time, the same could not be treated as barred by time even if filed beyond the prescribed time limit. He argues that even if there is any technical flaw in the revision petition or it is barred by time, the same could not deprive the revisional court of its corrective and supervisory jurisdiction. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the law laid down in cases Mst. Sabira Bi v. Ahmed Khan and another (2000 SCMR 847), Muhammad Boota v. Bsharat Ali (PLD 2014 Lahore 1), Mst. Banori v. Jilani (deceased) through LRs etc. (PLJ 2011 SC 895), Farman Ali v. Muhammad Ishaq and others (PLD 2013 SC 392) and Hafeez Ahmad and others v. Civil Judge, Lahore and others (PLD 2012 SC 400).

Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
214918/18
2018 LHC 1092


High Court Rules and Orders empowered the Deputy Registrar to raise the objections and fix the time for removing the same

Reliance is placed on the dictums laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid (1997 SCMR 1224) wherein it has been held that:

“The circumstances pointed out by the learned Judge quite clearly show that the petitioner‟s officials acted with gross negligence in re-filing the revision petition. They took almost one year in doing what they were required to do in seven days and the explanation offered by them for this inordinate delay has not been found to be convincing by the learned Judge and rightly so, in our view. It has not been denied that the High Court Rules and Orders empowered the Deputy Registrar to raise the objections and fix the time for removing the same. That being so, revision petition re-filed long after the expiry of the period specified by the office was rightly dismissed as time barred.”

Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
214918/18
2018 LHC 1092

Difference between Art.142 & 144 discussed

-    Difference between Art.142 & 144 discussed – Art. 142 applies when plaintiff in possession and dispossessed – suit can be filed within 12 years of dispossession. On the other hand Art.144 applies when the possession of the other party becomes adverse to the title of true owner.
PLD 1995 SC (AJ&K) 41.

Revision petition after objection of incompletion of the file by the Office was returned to the petitioners to re-file it within three days but it was re-filed after sixty days without any plausible reason,

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the revision petition after objection of incompletion of the file by the Office was returned to the petitioners to re-file it within three days but it was re-filed after sixty days without any plausible reason, therefore, it was badly barred by time. He points out that the only objection raised by the Office was regarding incompletion of the petition and no objection of preparation of paper books is reflected from the objection memo, therefore, it is nothing but an afterthought. He has relied upon the law laid down in cases Asif Ali Shah v. The Superintending Engineer, Quetta Circle, Quetta and another (PLD 1963 SC 263), Sultan Muhammad v. Muhammad Ashraf and 4 others (1991 CLC 269 Lahore), Naheed Ahmad v. Asif Riaz and 3 others (PLD 1996 Lahore 702), Muhammad Ahmad v. Muhammad Ali and another (PLD 1996 Lahore 158), Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Rashid (1997 SCMR 1224), Mst. Sabiran Bi v. Ahmad Khan and another (2000 SCMR 847) and Safdar Ali and 5 others v. Defence Housing Authority through Secretary and other (2011 YLR 1809 Lahore).

Part Of Judgment
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision
214918/18
2018 LHC 1092

Accented that instrument of gift (Ex:DW3/5) was received in evidence without any objection,

At this stage, Mr. Umar Riaz accented that instrument of gift (Ex:DW3/5) was received in evidence without any objection, as such it stood proved, was not correct. The pivotal question in the litigation was its genuineness or otherwise. Articles 78 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 are the relevant provisions, which provide procedure for proof of such like instrument. Even if it was brought on record without objection, but it could not be treated as evidence of the original having been signed and written by the persons, who purported to have written or signed it, unless the writing and their signatures were proved in terms of aforenoted provisions. The identical controversy has already been clinched by the apex Court in a case reported as Khan Muhammad Yousaf Khattak Vs. S.M. Ayub and others (PLD 1973 S.C. 160).

Part of Judgment
Lahore High court
Civil Revision
1759717.546-15
2018 LHC 2949

Application of the respondent moved under Section 12(2) of the CPC

On 19.01.2017, regarding the matter in issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan passed following order: 

“The request of Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned Sr. ASC for time to file additional documents is allowed. The parties must also come prepared to argue whether the original application of the respondent moved under Section 12(2) of the CPC but subsequently converted in a review petition vide order dated 12.1.2015 can be revived as an application under the provisions of Section 12(2) ibid in light of the law laid down in the judgments reported as Sahabzadi Maharunisa and another Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another (PLD 2016 SC 358) and Nasrullah Khan and others Vs. Mukhtar-ul-Hassan and others (PLD 2013 SC 478). Re-list.”


Used in Judgment of
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Land
3263/19
2020 LHC 781

Application under section 12(2) was filed before trial court

Forum: judgments and decrees of trial court were amended by High Court – Application under section 12(2) was filed before trial court – held – that as High Court passed final decrees in view of modification in its review jurisdiction, application u/s 12(2) shall lie in High Court.


Muhammad Aslam        Vs.    Molvi Muhammad Ishaq.
2012 SCMR 147

Application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

and on 24.10.2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court remitted the matter to this Court for adjudication, as under:

 “Both the learned counsel for parties are that as per the law laid down in the case of Sahabzadi Maharunisa and another Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another (PLD 2016 SC 358) the application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 should have been filed before the learned High Court. In these circumstances, the said application along with the reply filed by the respondent is transmitted to the learned Lahore High Court to decide the application in accordance with law. In case any factual controversies are involved in the matter, the Court should resolve the same framing issues and recording evidence, if need be. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

Used in Judgment of
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Land
3263/19
2020 LHC 781

Section 115 --- Limitation Act (IX of 1908),

S. 115---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.3---Waiver of question of limitation by court not permissible---Wrong decision on question of limitation revisable sui motu by High Court under S.115, C.P.C.---Principles. The question of limitation can be considered by the court itself whether it is pleaded or not by the parties to the suit.

Zahir Hussain and 4 others    Versus      Bashir Muhammad and 5 others.
2012 C L C 377

Institute a suit for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act

18. Even this Court in the case of Allah Rakha and another v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 22 others (2004 MLD 597) and Muhammad Munawar v. Abdul Razaq and 6 others (2018 CLC 1227) has also adopted the same principles. Further, if any person considers himself aggrieved by any entry in a record of rights or in a periodical record as to any right of which he is in possession, he may institute a suit for declaration of his right under Chapter VI of the Specific Relief Act. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Khan Bahadur through Legal Heirs (1992 SCMR 2334)

Used in Judgment of
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT M U L T A N B E N C H M U L T A N JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Writ Petition-Land-Miscellaneous
11548-15
2020 LHC 937
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search