Jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and pass an order has also implicit power to have the order implemented and mere an erroneous order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction does not render the order without jurisdiction

Whereas, in a case cited as Izhar Alam Farooqi, Advocate and another Vs. Sheikh Abdul Sattar Lasi and others (2008 CLD 149) , the apex Court observed as follows:-

 It is true that a Court which has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and pass an order has also implicit power to have the order implemented and mere an erroneous order passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction does not render the order without jurisdiction.

Part of Judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
2396929.2081-16
2018 LHC 343

Suit would indicate that he neither specified the date when he came about the impugned mutation nor gave any explanation tenable in law to justify condonation.

 In this respect, guideline has been sought from Lal Khan (Decd.) through His LRs. v. Muhammad Yousaf (Decd.) through His LRs. and another (NLR 2011 Revenue 65), wherein it has invariably been held by Apex Court of the Country:- 

‘27. In the case in hand, a bare look at the plaint of respondent’s suit would indicate that he neither specified the date when he came about the impugned mutation nor gave any explanation tenable in law to justify condonation. In these circumstances, the findings on issue No.4 are violative of the law declared and therefore not sustainable.’

Part of Judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1066739.2108-09
2018 LHC 285

Once an undertaking is given in the Court by a party or on his behalf by his counsel he becomes bound to fulfill the same

Full Bench of this Court in a case reported as Mst. Kishwar Sultan Jehan Begum Vs. Aslam Awais Arw 3 others (PLD 1976 Lahore 580), observed as under:- 

An undertaking given to the Court by a party or his counsel has exactly the same force as an order made or an injunction granted by a Court; once an undertaking is given in the Court by a party or on his behalf by his counsel he becomes bound to fulfill the same. 

Part of Judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
2396929.2081-16
2018 LHC 343

Government was free to offer renewal for a lesser area that what was covered in the expired lease

Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a judgment reported as Mst.Zainab Khatoon Vs. Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab and others (1998 SCMR 1188), as under:- 

“In this view of the matter the above contention is devoid of any force as the petitioners could not have claimed renewal of the lease as a matter of right. The corollary of the above conclusion is that the Government was free to offer renewal for a lesser area that what was covered in the expired lease. The rationale for reducing ceiling of the area for allotment seems to be that the Government wishes to accommodate more retired Army personnel under the above Scheme……. The facts of Civil Petition No.425 of 1994 appears to be different, in which lease was renewed up to the period expiring in June, 1996, but the same was cancelled on the ground that the petitioners’ performance was not found satisfactory. The High Court has rightly observed that it is open to the petitioners to agitate the above question before the forums provided under the relevant law. The above petition has also not merits.”  

Part of judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Land
6747/19
2019 LHC 3711

Constitutional provision was designed to empower the High Court to interfere with the decision of a Court or tribunal of inferior jurisdiction, merely because in its opinion the decision was wrong

is placed on Sub. Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another (PLD 1976 SC 435), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:

 “… It is well settled that where a Court or a tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines a question, it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law. It is wholly wrong to consider that the constitutional provision was designed to empower the High Court to interfere with the decision of a Court or tribunal of inferior jurisdiction, merely because in its opinion the decision was wrong.”

Part of judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Land
6747/19
2019 LHC 3711

Recommendations of the District Remount Officer could not be demonstrated to be either arbitrary, fanciful or capricious.

15. The recommendations of the District Remount Officer should be given due weightage by the concerned authority while granting the tenancy. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case cited as Raja Muhammad Aslam v. Raja Muhammad Sarwar and others (2000 SCMR 531) held as under: 

“6….. The learned High Court observed that the choice of the Collector passed on the recommendations of the District Remount Officer could not be demonstrated to be either arbitrary, fanciful or capricious. Subedar Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another (PLD 1976 SC 435) may be cited wherein it was observed that the recommendations of the District Remount Officer were entitled to due weight and interference with the orders of the Collector and Board of Revenue in such matter in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court was disapproved.”

Part of judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Land
6747/19
2019 LHC 3711

Deceased was a Sunni but the defendants who were the daughters of the last holder denied that fact.

In the case of “Mst. Iqbal Begum v. Mst. Syed Begum” (AIR 1933 Lahore 80), the plaintiff who was the sister of the last holder alleged that the deceased was a Sunni but the defendants who were the daughters of the last holder denied that fact. The onus of proving that the deceased was a Shia was held to be on the defendants. The above stated principles were reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in case of “Mst. Sardar Bibi v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others” (PLD 1954 Lahore 480) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Pathana vs. Mst. Wasai and another” (PLD 1965 SC 134). 

Part of Judgment
 THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 
Civil Revision
1777836.955-15
2018 LHC 701

Limitation does not run against a void transaction nor does efflux of time extinguish the right of inherence

5. Limitation does not run against a void transaction nor does efflux of time extinguish the right of inherence. In the present case the petitioner has taken a specific stance that neither she entered appearance before any revenue official/ officer for execution or attestation of mutations in dispute nor did she receive any sale consideration nor delivered the possession of the disputed property to the respondents/ defendants and the mutations in dispute are result of impersonation, fraud, forgery and against law. Thus, the suit of the petitioner/plaintiff is well within limitation after specific denial about two months prior to institution of the suit as has been averred in the plaint by her and even the mutation is not a proof of title and a beneficiary thereunder has to prove the same by leading strong, cogent and trustworthy evidence. This Court is fortified on this view by judgments reported as Peer Baksh through LRs and other v. Mst. Khanzadi and others (2016 SCMR 1417), Mst. Suban v. Allah Ditta and others (2007 SCMR 635) and Khalil Ahmad v. Abdul Jabbar Khan and others (2005 SCMR 911).

Part of Judgment of 
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR 
Civil Revision
652-11
2018 LHC 667

Courts below could not be reversed in exercise of revisional Jurisdiction as conferred upon the High Court under section 115, C.P.C.

6. Now the argument that at this stage the concurrent findings recorded by the learned Courts below cannot be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 merely because different view is possible to be taken is considered and dilated upon and in this regard sufficient is to observe that while dealing with this proposition the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in various judgments including Nazim-Ud-Din and others v. Sheikh Zia-Ul-Qamar and others (2016 SCMR 24), Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630), Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others v. Ghulam Ali (2004 SCMR 1001) and Habib Khan and others v. Mst. Bakhtmina and others (2004 SCMR 1668) has invariably held: 


„5. It is well-entrenched legal proposition that concurrent findings of facts of the Courts below could not be reversed in exercise of revisional Jurisdiction as conferred upon the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. and learned ASC has rightly referred and relied upon various authorities as mentioned in the preceding paragraph but it should not be ignored that such concurrent findings, cannot be termed as “sacrosanct” and could be reversed if the same are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material piece of evidence, erroneous assumption of facts and patent error of law. We are not persuaded to agree with Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, learned ASC that concurrent findings must be kept intact irrespective of the fact whether the same are erroneous or otherwise.‟

Part of Judgment of 
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR 
Civil Revision
652-11
2018 LHC 667

Execution of a document is to be proved to be in the handwriting or signature or thumb-mark of the alleged executant,

7. In view of the above, when the respondents have not produced the witnesses in whose presence the bargain has struck in, consideration has been paid, if for the sake of arguments it is accepted that the petitioner thumb marked the disputed mutations, even then after denial, the same would not be said to have been proved, because not only mere signing or putting thumb-mark on a document, but something more must be proved for its due execution, which is lacking in this case. In this regard reliance is placed on Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah and others v. Asghar Hsusain Shah and others (2007 SCMR 1884), wherein it has been held: 

„According to Article 78 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, execution of a document is to be proved to be in the handwriting or signature or thumb-mark of the alleged executant, which would mean signing or putting thumb-mark over a document as consenting party thereto. Execution of document would not only mean mere signing or putting thumb-impression but something more than mere signing or putting thumb-impression by executant. It must be proved that thumb-mark was made in the presence of witness in whose presence the document was written and read over and it was understood by the vendor and would not only be limited to merely signing a name or placing thumb-impression upon a blank sheet of paper so as to prove the document to have been executed whose identification should also be proved by reliable and authentic evidence that a person who has affixed thumb-mark or signature was the same person who owned the land and sold the same to be vendee. Execution would mean series of acts, which would complete the execution. Mere singing or putting thumb-mark would not amount to execution in terms of Article 78 of Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984. A document which is not proved is inadmissible in evidence, unless strict proof of it is waived.‟ 

Part of Judgment of 
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR 
Civil Revision
652-11
2018 LHC 667

Under the law and principle of justice, when mutation is never held to be a document of title and when a negligible presumption is attached to it

 In Abdul Hameed through L.Rs. and others v. Shamasuddin and others (PLD 2008 Supreme Court 140) and Ghulam Farid and another v. Sher Rehman through L.Rs. (2016 SCMR 862), the Apex Court of the country held:

"Under the law and principle of justice, when mutation is never held to be a document of title and when a negligible presumption is attached to it, provided it is proved fairly and its entry and attestation is conducted in the laid down manner, the mere incorporation of it into the “Jama Bandi” and its repetition periodically, would not confer title on the purchaser unless the transaction of sale is independently established, through cogent and convincing evidence. In the case of transaction with illiterate village lady this principle assumes the status of rule of law as in that case the onus of the beneficiary of it becomes manifold. To discharge the burden of proof he has to satisfy the Court of law that the entire transaction was completed in a transparent manner and all the required precautions were faithfully and honestly observed before the attestation of mutation, dispelling every suspicion that it was tainted with fraud and misrepresentation.‟  

Part of Judgment of 
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR 
Civil Revision
652-11
2018 LHC 667

Cannot be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,

3. Naysaying the submissions above, the learned counsel representing the respondents has supported the impugned judgments and decrees, which have been rendered concurrently, and has further argued that at this stage the same cannot be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 merely because different view is possible to be taken. He has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand. Relies on Abdul Qayum through Legal Heirs v. Mushk-e-Alam and another (2001 SCMR 798), Muhammad Sardar and others v. Province of Punjab and others (2011 YLR 119-Lahore), Muhammad Ijaz and 2 others v. Additional District Judge, Multan District Multan and 4 others (PLJ 2011 Lahore 42) and Muhammad and others v. Mst. Khatoon and others (2013 YLR 2036-Lahore)

Part of Judgment of 
LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR 
Civil Revision
652-11
2018 LHC 667

Allegation of fraud should be dealt by the Civil Court because Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction

16. It has been repeatedly held by the Superior Courts, and similarly law itself provides, that proceedings before the Revenue Courts are of summary nature. Whenever complicated question of fact is involved, the exclusive jurisdiction vests in the Civil Court to decide the same. The Revenue Courts have exceeded from their jurisdiction and have erred while interfering in the complicated question of title based on alleged fraud. The longstanding entries qua the allegation of fraud should be dealt by the Civil Court because Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to interfere in such like matters. The mutation being summary proceedings Revenue authorities could not clinch such complicated matter in summary proceedings. At the time of attestation of mutation, no detailed evidence is recorded by the Revenue Officers and it is otherwise the function of the Civil Court to decide matters after framing of issues and recording of evidence of both the parties. Reference is placed on case-law reported as Muhammad Naeem v. Siraj-U-Din and 6 others (2015 CLC 1084), Mst. Khurshid Bibi and others v. Liaqat Ali and others (2010 Y L R 2729), Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Pir Bakhsh and others (1990 CLC 1968) and Muhammad Ishaq v. Member (R), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 18 others (1994 MLD 2254). 

Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT M U L T A N BENC H M U L T A N JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Writ Petition-Land-Miscellaneous
11548-15
2020 LHC 937

Judgment and decree in question was assailed by respondent under Section 12(2), C.P.C. & 151

Judgment and decree in question was assailed by respondent under S. 12(2), C.P.C. and the same was set aside by Lower Appellate court in exercise of revisional  jurisdiction ---Validity--- Court had jurisdiction to take cognizance of open fraud---No rule was required to correct/rectify a wrong---Court had always inherent powers to prevent abuse of process of law by moulding relief in appropriate cases---Provisions of S.151, C.P.C. were rightly invoked by Lower Appellate Court in aid of justice, as it was thought necessary in the circumstances of the case to prevent abuse of process of the court and to avoid a situation resulting in stalemate.

Muhammad Ismail     Versus    Rehmat Ali
2009 YLR 1265
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore

SECTION 12(2) & 151 C.P.C.

Evacuee land could only be disposed off through open auction in terms of the Scheme, 1977 and otherwise,

Reliance is also placed on the case titled as American International School System Vs. Mian Muhammad Ramzan & Others (2015 SCMR 1449). For ready reference, relevant portion of American International School System case (supra) is reproduced as under:- 

“In the instant cases, as record shows that on mere desire of the then Chief Minister of Punjab, the Member (Colonies) BOR, Punjab doled out valuable “residual evacuee property” at a throw away price to the petitioner-School, knowing fully well that the subject property is not the State land and that the subject evacuee land could only be disposed off through open auction in terms of the Scheme, 1977 and otherwise, he was not at all competent to undertake such exercise, which authority under the Scheme, 1977 vested in the Member, Board of Revenue (Residual Properties).” 

Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH MULTAN 
Writ Petition-Settlement-Land Settlement Act
7-R-14
2020 LHC 246

Settled that after promulgation of the Repeal Act 1975, the property can only be disposed of through open auction,

A similar view has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Din & Others Vs. Ghulam Muhammad Naseem Sindhu & Others (PLD 1991 SC 1). Further in C.P. No.709- L/2009 titled Member (Judicial-V), Board of Revenue/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Punjab & 2 Others Vs. Sagheer Muhammad Khan & Others, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide order dated 02.01.2015 settled that after promulgation of the Repeal Act 1975, the property can only be disposed of through open auction, the relevant portion thereof is reproduced as under:- 

“7. Considering the above, we are clear firstly that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Bench in para 9 of the impugned judgment, as reproduced above is incorrect and the reliance on the case of Muhammad Hussain (supra) is also misplaced. Secondly, it is evident that as of date, the respondents can have no claim on the property in question. According to the current law and arrangements put in place by the Province subsequent to the Repeal Act the property will have to be disposed of through open public  auction so that the assets vested in the Province and ultimately in the people of the Province are duly protected. This shall not prevent the Province from proceeding against the respondents or others both for recovery of compensation for occupation and use of the property and for any other action civil or criminal in this case. This petition is converted into appeal and is allowed in the above terms.” (emphasis supplied)

Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH MULTAN 
Writ Petition-Settlement-Land Settlement Act
7-R-14
2020 LHC 246

Well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates even the most solemn transaction,

15. Lastly, I would address the question of limitation which was the subject matter of issue No.7. It is well settled principle of law that fraud vitiates even the most solemn transaction, as such any transaction based on fraud would be void and notwithstanding the bar of limitation the matter can be considered on merit so as not to allow fraud to perpetuate. In this regard reference may be made to the case of Mst. Raj Bibi and others v Province of Punjab through District Collector, Okara and 5 others (2001 SCMR 1591). In another recent judgment handed down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of “Peer Bakhsh through LRs and others v. Mst. Khanzadi and others” (2016 SCMR 1417) it has been held that limitation does not run against the void transaction nor efflux of time extinguishes the right of inheritance. In view of above settled principles of law, the objection of defendant No.1 qua limitation is repelled. 


Part of Judgment
 THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 
Civil Revision
1777836.955-15
2018 LHC 701

Regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under section 172, subsection (2), clause VI of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

 Reference in this respect can be made to Rasta Mal Khan and others v. Nabi Sarwar Khan and others (1996 SCMR 78) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under 

"10. Regarding bar of jurisdiction of the Civil Court under section 172, subsection (2), clause VI of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 it may be pointed out that exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court relates to the correction of the entries made by the Revenue Officer in performance of his duty without touching the right of the persons in the land, but whenever such entries interferes with the rights of a person in the land record in the Record of Rights, and such person feels aggrieved, for correction of such entries he has to approach Civil Court for declaration under section 53 of the Act or in other words under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act both the relief available being of the same nature and identical. The dispute herein pertained to the nature of the transactions in the suits for preemption based on the impugned mutation. The suits were therefore rightly held triable by the Civil Court."

Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT M U L T A N BENC H M U L T A N JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Writ Petition-Land-Miscellaneous
11548-15
2020 LHC 937

House of deceased would be proof of fact that deceased was of Shia faith.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Ghulam Ayesha alias Ilyas Begum etc. v. Sardar Sher Khan, etc.” (2006 SCJ 313) has held that flying of Alam of Hazrat Abbas on house of deceased would be proof of fact that deceased was of Shia faith.

Part of Judgment
 THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE 
Civil Revision
1777836.955-15
2018 LHC 701

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).  

Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT M U L T A N BENC H M U L T A N JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Writ Petition-Land-Miscellaneous
11548-15
2020 LHC 937

Petitioner's grievance was that the notified officer passed the order against them

-    "Petitioner's grievance was that the notified officer passed the order against them after the notified officer had been transferred. Notified officer was transferred on 12-1-1998 with immediate effect but he still heard the case on 13-1-1998and decided it on 16-1-1998. Contention that the order of transfer would have taken effect after the same has been published in the official Gazette Held- Notified officer should not have adjudicated the case because his transfer was with immediate effect on 12-1-1998. It's legal efficacy was not dependent upon its publication in the Gazette as it took effect immediately";

Barkat ali vs Addl Commissioner
2004 MLD 1633

Note that Section 45 of the Revenue Act clearly provides that entries in record of rights or periodical record

13. It is important to note that Section 45 of the Revenue Act clearly provides that entries in record of rights or periodical record (except entries made in periodical records with respect to undisputed acquisition of interest under Section 43) cannot be varied in subsequent records unless:

(i) the facts are proved or admitted, 
(ii) entries are agreed by all the interested parties or supported by decree of order binding on those parties, and 
(iii) making new maps where it is necessary to make them. In other words, Section 45 of the Revenue Act provides that the variation in a periodical record could be made with respect to undisputed acquisition of interest in terms of Section 43(a) of the Act, on the basis of facts proved or admitted. Likewise, such corrections were permissible with the consent of all the parties or which are supported by a decree or order binding on parties and not otherwise. All this brings to hold that no disputed entry in a record-of-rights or periodical record could be altered, either on ground of mistake or a fraud, except on basis of obvious clerical error or patent facts, requiring no elaborate inquiry for their establishment, thus, the disputed entries having been incorporated in the Revenue Record could only be corrected through a decree of the competent court and not by the order of any of the official in the hierarchy of revenue authorities. This view has been supported by the judgments in case of Waris Khan v. Col. Humayun Shah (PLD 1994 SC 336), Rasta Mal Khan v. Nabi Sarwar Khan 1996 SCMR 78 and Nemat Ali v. Malik Habib Ullah (2004 SCMR 604).  

Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT M U L T A N BENC H M U L T A N JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Writ Petition-Land-Miscellaneous
11548-15
2020 LHC 937

Value of such construction shall be determined by the Deputy Administrator and paid to such a person out of the auction proceeds by such authority

Reliance is placed on the case titled as Muhammad Ramzan & Others Vs. Member (Revenue) Chief Settlement Commissioner & Others (1997 SCMR 1635) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- 

“18. The Government of the Punjab Province then prepared and prescribed Scheme for the management and disposal of available urban properties (See PLD 1977 Punjab Statute page 62). Certain provisions of the Scheme were amended in 1985 (See PLD 1985 Punjab Statute page 6). The terms "available properties" and "building sites" were defined in paragraphs 1 (c) and 1(d) of the Scheme, 1977. Paragraph 6 provided that an available building site on which a person in possession has raised a permanent construction and applied for its transfer may be transferred to him alongwith an area which does not exceed three times the constructed area on the transfer price and where any person having made a permanent construction on a building site did not apply for transfer, it should be disposed of through unrestricted public auction alongwith the construction. The value of such construction shall be determined by the Deputy Administrator and paid to such a person out of the auction proceeds by such authority as may be specified. Paragraph 11 of the Scheme also provides for auction of the building site.” (emphasis supplied)

Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH MULTAN 
Writ Petition-Settlement-Land Settlement Act
7-R-14
2020 LHC 246

Civil Court under Section 9 of C.P.C. can try all suits of civil nature except those of which their jurisdiction is barred either expressly or by necessary implication.

15. It is an established principle of law that the mutation proceedings are of summary nature under the Revenue Act. A Civil Court is a court of plenary jurisdiction and fraud can always be challenged before the Civil Court because it requires to be proved through evidence of the parties. Reliance is placed on Jan Muhammad through Mubarik Ali and others v. Nazir Ahmad and others (2004 SCMR 612). It has also been held that rights of parties qua disputed property require determination after giving them fair opportunity to adduce evidence. Factual controversies can only be resolved by the Civil Court having plenary jurisdiction. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Nemat Ali and another v. Malik Habib Ullah and others (2004 SCMR 604). The Revenue Courts have no power to correct the longstanding entries in the revenue record in summary manner. Reliance in this respect is placed upon Muhammad Naeem v. Siraj-Ud-Din and 6 others (2015 CLC 1084). It has been settled that the Civil Court being the court of plenary jurisdiction, is competent to inquire into the question, whether impugned mutation is attested by practicing fraud and if it is so, it has the jurisdiction to declare the same to be void. The Civil Court under Section 9 of C.P.C. can try all suits of civil nature except those of which their jurisdiction is barred either expressly or by necessary implication. In this context reliance can be placed on the case reported as Muhammad Jameel Asghar v. The Improvement Trust Rawalpindi (PLD 1965 SC 698) wherein it was held that where the question of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction is raised, the civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same. Reliance is also placed on Hafiz Kalu and others v. Muhammad Bakhsh and others (2019 YLR 1523)  

Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT M U L T A N BENC H M U L T A N JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Writ Petition-Land-Miscellaneous
11548-15
2020 LHC 937

Resolve the same framing issues and recording evidence

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.”  

Part of Judgment of 
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Land
3263/19
2020 LHC 781

Suo motu withdraw our earlier order

On 12.04.2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 

“C.R.P.No.308/2004: Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we suo motu withdraw our earlier order dated 12.1.2015. This petition shall be treated as under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as per the law laid down by the judgment reported as Sahabzadi Maharunisa and another Vs. Mst. Ghulam Sughran and another (PLD 2016 SC 358). Re-list.” 

Part of Judgment of 
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Land
3263/19
2020 LHC 781

Section 150 is not applicable to a case where the District judge fixed the jurisdiction of court

Transfer-includes transfer of business under civil courts Act. The word transfer in Sec 150 is not applicable to a case where the District judge fixed the jurisdiction of court under the civil courts act and transferred the whole of the business within a certain area of it.


AIR 1923 Madras 92

O-39 R-2 –SEC.150 OF CPC

Incompetent suit shall be buried at its inception

 In another case titled as S.M.Shafi Ahmad Zaidi through Legal Heirs Vs. Malik Hassan Ali Khan (Moin) through Legal Heirs (2002 SCMR 338), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed that incompetent suit shall be buried at its inception for the saved with the time and unnecessary expenses and the Courts get more time to devote it for the genuine causes and held as under:- 

“17. Provisional transfer order does not, ipso facto, confer absolute title over the property. Admittedly, this case is not  governed by section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. Without clear title the suit for possession could not be filed. The Government gave the land to the Society and the latter surrendered it back to the former. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had no independent right. His right, if any, was through the Society, and it ceased to exist before it became perfect and enforceable in law. It is the requirement of law that incompetent suit shall be buried at its inception. It is in the interest of the litigating parties and the judicial institution itself. The parties are saved with the time and unnecessary expenses and the Courts get more time to devote it for the genuine causes. The findings of the learned Single Judge and of Division Bench are based upon material available on record and no legal infirmity has been pointed out. Under the circumstances, the plaint was rightly rejected.” (emphasis supplied)


Part of Judgment of 
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Land
3263/19
2020 LHC 781

Principle of laches is also fully applicable upon this case

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).

Part of Judgment of 
THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT 
Land
3263/19
2020 LHC 781
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search