Copies of public record including Jamabandis, mutations and Aks Kishtwaar can be allowed to be produced in evidence even at revisional stage.

10. Considering from another angle, the documents brought on record by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents through statement of her counsel were part of public record. According to the law laid down by the Apex Court of the Country in the case reported as Syed Sharif ul Hassan through L.Rs v. Hafiz Muhammad Amin and others (2012 SCMR 1258) copies of public record including Jamabandis, mutations and Aks Kishtwaar can be allowed to be produced in evidence even at revisional stage. Insofar as the case in hand is concerned, admittedly, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed application to bring on record said documents before the court of first instance and after permission in that regard the same were brought on record. Moreover, the documents brought on record by predecessor-in-interest of the respondents after permission of the court were relevant for the just decision of the case. When a Court comes to the conclusion that production of a document or a witness is necessary for just decision of the case it can order for production of such document or witness irrespective of the fact as to whether there is application in that regard or not. 

 Part of Judgment 

 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

Civil Rev. Against Decree

337-09

2017 LHC 4412

Revisional jurisdiction in a casual manner rather it has to be proved that the same are perverse or arbitrary or the same are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence.

15. Even otherwise, concurrent findings of facts cannot be upset by this court in its revisional jurisdiction in a casual manner rather it has to be proved that the same are perverse or arbitrary or the same are based on misreading or non-reading of evidence. In this regard, reference can safely be made to the case reported as Muhammad Idrees and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz and others (2010 SCMR 5). 

Part of Judgment 

 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT BAHAWALPUR BENCH, BAHAWALPUR

Civil Rev. Against Decree

337-09

2017 LHC 4412

Power of rescission or recall of the earlier order is always available to the Authority passing that order.

22. In this regard reliance can be placed on the case titled Muhammad Zakir Khan. V. Government of Sindh and others (2004 SCMR 497) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that power of rescission or recall of the earlier order is always available to the Authority passing that order. 

Part of Judgment 
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,LAHORE
Civil Miscellaneous (Writ)
27212-16
2017 LHC 4283

Agreement between the Government and the appellant was in the nature of sale of a public office, consideration being the transfer of land.

With regard to contract against law and public policy, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as Hameedullah and 9 others Vs. Headmistress, Government Girls School Chokara, District Karak and 5 others (1997 SCMR 855) held that:- 

“From the aforestated observations it is clear that the agreement between the Government and the appellant was in the nature of sale of a public office, consideration being the transfer of land. Sale of public office cannot be a legal transaction. It is completely illegal and against public policy. Therefore, such an agreement is hit by section 23 of the Contract Act, which makes it void.” (emphasis supplied)

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

It is a settled rule that all questions that pertain to the pre-decretal matters shall be raised in defence during trial and could not be allowed to be raised in execution proceedings.

15. It is a settled rule that all questions that pertain to the pre-decretal matters shall be raised in defence during trial and could not be allowed to be raised in execution proceedings. Executing court cannot go behind or beyond the decree. In a similar case “Mst. Naseem Akhtar and 4 others v. Shalimar General Insurance Limited and 2 others” (1994 SCMR 22) wherein a decree for recovery of money granted in a suit against insurance company as well as the truck driver in an accident case, the civil court granted decree against both of them jointly and severely for the suit amount. In the execution proceedings an objection was raised that the liability of the insurance company was limited to the extent of Rs. 16,000/- and therefore, the decree pertaining to insurance company with full decretal amount of Rs. 400,000/- was without jurisdiction and impermissible. The objection sustained at the High Court level but the order was set aside by the August Supreme Court on the ground that the executing court could not go beyond the decree, and that pre-decretal matters/questions could not be agitated in execution proceedings. The operative part of the judgment for facility of guidance is reproduced hereunder: 

“After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record and the precedents we are of the view that no doubt that the liability of the appellants was limited under the relevant statute. In the suit filed by the appellants, the respondent No.1 filed the written statement. It did not take the plea of limited liability. It produced its Manager as D.W.1, however decree was passed in favour of the appellants and against the respondents. The respondent No.1 filed an appeal but did not prosecute it and it was dismissed for non-prosecution. The respondent No.1 then filed an application for restoration but did not prosecute. This too, was dismissed. Thus, the decree became final. In the execution proceedings, it was not open to the respondent No.1 to take up the plea which he had not taken before the learned trial court during the course of the hearing of the suit which was ultimately decreed and the decree was allowed to become final. In these circumstances, the respondent No.1 itself is responsible for the decree against. It is pertinent to mentioned here that even though its liability was limited it is not open to the respondent No.1 judgment debtor now to contend that its liability has not been correctly assessed or determined. If it were permissible, there will be no end or finality to the judgment and decree which had become final. Precedents noted and analysed above make quite clear that once a decree is passed it has to be executed in its terms and it is not open to the executing Court to go behind it and redetermine the liability of the parties. In this view of the matter, there is no option but to allow this appeal and hold that the learned Judge in the High Court fell in error in giving effect to the plea of the respondent No.1 which had not been raised before the learned trial court which granted the decree to the appellants….

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

Civil revision in hand is accepted, impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside and the suit instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff is decreed ...

10. The crux of the discussion above is that while placing reliance on the judgments supra as well as judgment reported as Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 688), the civil revision in hand is accepted, impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside and the suit instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff is decreed declaring the mutations No.442 dated 02.07.1961, 452 dated 10.07.1962, 482 dated 22.02.1966, 507 dated 21.01.1959 and 602 dated 19.08.1966 against law and facts, ineffective qua the rights of the petitioner/plaintiff, result of fraud and are cancelled, accordingly.

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

Case the recommendations of the District Remount Officer for grant of tenancy were accepted by the Deputy Commissioner,

In the case of Muhammad Nawaz v. Member Board of Revenue and others (2009 SCMR 562) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: 

“6. As regards the case of Raja Muhammad Aslam (ibid), suffice it to say that in the said case the recommendations of the District Remount Officer for grant of tenancy were accepted by the Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner, the Member, Board of Revenue and also affirmed by the learned High Court and under the said set of circumstances, it was held that as findings of the Deputy Commissioner/District Collector based on recommendations of District Remount Officer were accepted by all the forums including the learned High Court, therefore, the recommendations of the District Remount Officer should be given due weight, while in the present case only the Collector decided in favour of the petitioner, while the other forums, as noted above, including the learned High Court decided against the petitioner. In view whereof, the said case relied upon by the learned counsel is of no avail to the petitioner.”

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

Under section 36 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the provisions of the Code relating to the execution of decree are also applicable to orders.

Moreover, this Court in the judgment syled as Khawar Saeed Raza Vs. Wajahat Iqbal (2003 CLC 1306) clinched the identical controversy in hand while concluding as under:-

 Compromise is admitted which became part of the order, which stipulated the withdrawal of the suit by the respondent. Under section 36 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the provisions of the Code relating to the execution of decree are also applicable to orders. Even if there was no decree in existence an order disposing of the suit in terms of the compromise is very much there, binding upon and operative qua the parties. In Kilachand Devchand and Co. V. Ajodhuaprasad Sukhamnand and others AIR 1934 Bombay 452, it was observed that if the Court had jurisdiction to make the order it had necessarily the power and jurisdiction to enforce the same and the law does not allow its machinery to be clogged in this respect. Likewise in Ranjit Singh Hazari and others V. Juman Meah and another PLD 1961 Dacca 842 section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code was considered by the learned Division Bench of the then High Court of Dacca (East Pakistan) and it was observed that the provisions regarding execution of decree were applicable to orders as well.

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

If the provisions of the Act are not complied with then the Institutions cannot run smoothly as is required by the law and the guarantees provided by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.

In another judgment reported as Muhammad Arshad Khakwani Vs. I.U.B. and another (2011 MLD 322) this Court has held that:- 

“No doubt the Statutory bodies are governed under the Act, rules, regulations and statutes which are meant for the said purpose and no one is allowed to supersede the same. The University functionaries are presumed to act under the law and no one can exceed from its domain neither supersede nor deviate. If the provisions of the Act are not complied with then the Institutions cannot run smoothly as is required by the law and the guarantees provided by the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.” 

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

Case the date of limitation would start from date of registration of the sale deed instead of date of knowledge and when we compute the period from the said date

Pursuant to the above, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that date of sale through registered sale deed is 03.04.2001, thus, in this case the date of limitation would start from date of registration of the sale deed instead of date of knowledge and when we compute the period from the said date, it ends on 03.08.2001, on which date the District Judiciary observes Summer Vacation and no regular work except urgent nature is entertained; thus, the respondent instituted the suit on 01.09.2001, on the first opening day of the Courts, after summer vacation as per mandate of section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which would be considered well within time. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Ramzan v. Ahmad Bux and another (1991 SCMR 716), Messrs Tribal Friends Co. v. Province of Balochistan (2002 SCMR 1903) and Province of Punjab through Collector and others v. Muhammad Saleem and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 783). 

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327

Mere contention that such plea was not taken in written statement does not liberate the learned trial Court from considering the question of law i.e. limitation, rather the learned trial Court is bound to consider such question at its own.

2. Opening arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the suit was barred by limitation, but, this aspect of the case was not considered by the learned Courts below; mere contention that such plea was not taken in written statement does not liberate the learned trial Court from considering the question of law i.e. limitation, rather the learned trial Court is bound to consider such question at its own. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Haji Abdullah Khan and others v. Nisar Muhammad Khan and others (PLD 1965 Supreme Court 690), Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmad and others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 153), Haji Muhammad Shah v. Sher Khan and others (PLD 194 Supreme Court 294), Maulana Nur-Ul-Haq v. Ibrahim Khalil (2000 SCMR 1305), Qasim Ali v. Rehmatullah (2005 SCMR 1926), Muhammad Khan v. Muhammad Amin (decd) through L.Rs. and others (2008 PSC 1443), Mst. Kausar Parveen v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 760), Muhammad Zahid v. Dr. Muhammad Ali (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 488) and Noor Din and another v. Additional District Judge, Lahore and others (2014 SCMR 513). He submits that material contradictions in the depositions of the P.Ws. have not been considered and undue weight has been given to the evidence produced by the respondent, thus, gross misreading and non-reading of evidence has been committed which has caused miscarriage of justice. Reliance has been placed on Ghafoor Khan (deceased) through LRs. v. Israr Ahmed (2011 SCMR 1545) and Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866). He contends that the respondent has not proved performance of talbs as per mandate of law because neither the postman nor the A.D. has been produced by the respondent; therefore, the suit ought to have been dismissed instead of decreed as has been done by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the learned appellate Court. Relies on Muhammad Ramzan v. Lal Khan (1995 SCMR 1510), Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs. and others (PLD 2007 Supreme Court 302), Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah (2007 SCMR 1105), Muhammad Sharif through Mst. Irshad Bibi and others v. Walayat Khan (2008 SCMR 248), Khan Afsar v. Afsar Khan and others (2015 SCMR 311), Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Muhammad Hanif through L.Rs. (2016 CLC Note 89-Lahore), Muhammad Akbar v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others (2016 CLC 1402-Lahore), Saeeda Ghazala and 3 others v. Tahira Naz and 10 others (2016 CLC 1438- Lahore), Amir Khan v. Muhammad Taj (2017 CLC Note 94), Haji Makhan through Legal Representatives v. Mian Muhammad Zaman (2017 CLC Note 117), Ali Muhammad v. Malka Hussain (2017 CLC 463-Lahore) and Basharat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Akbar (2017 SCMR 309). He, by placing further reliance on Hasil and another v. Karam Hussain Shah and others (1995 SCMR 1385), Nawab Din through L.Rs. v. Faqir Sain (2007 SCMR 401) and Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Zainab Bibi (2007 SCMR 1086), the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgments and decrees as well as dismissal of the suit.

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327

Vires the powers granted under rule 98 of BMCR 1970 read with section 5 of the Act of 1948, and thus void. Shorn of relaxations so grant

The August Court in a case reported as Maulana Abdul Haque Baloch and others Vs. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Industries and Mineral Development and others (PLD 2013 SC 641) has held as under:- 

“The competent authority also failed to determine the terms and conditions to be fixed in granting the relaxations sought for. In this view of the matter, in absence of the requirements of rule 98 being fulfilled in the instant case, all relaxations were granted in excess of authority and were entirely beyond the scope of the provisions of law, and therefore, ultra vires the powers granted under rule 98 of BMCR 1970 read with section 5 of the Act of 1948, and thus void. Shorn of relaxations so grant, CHEJVA has no legal sanctity and consequently remains an agreement entered into against the provisions of law, hence not enforceable. All the key provisions of CHEJVA were made subject to a reliance on relaxations that were illegal and void ab initio, the illegality of the agreement seeps to its root. As such, no operative part of the agreement survives to be independently enforceable and the principle of severability cannot be applied to save any part thereof. The agreement is, therefore, void and unenforceable in its entirety under the law.” 

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

Competent Authority and an officer not below Grade-17 is present in Court to verify and reiterate such instructions

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has resolved this issue in a case cited as Faisalabad Development Authority v. Raja Jahangir Nasir and others (2004 SCMR 1247) as under:

 9… These are certain recommendations made through Notification No.F.5(2)/2003 by Attorney-General for Pakistan pursuance to directions issued by this Court in Pakistan Railways v. Muhammad Sharif Javaid Warsi PLD 2003 SC 6. Recommendation No.8.0 concerning concessions is reproduced below:-- 

Concessions 8.0 The Law Officers must not make any statement conceding an issue or a case in Court unless they have been duly instructed in writing by the Competent Authority and an officer not below Grade-17 is present in Court to verify and reiterate such instructions. In all such cases the presence of the officer must be recorded in the order of the Court and the written instructions made a part of the record of the Court.” 

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

The second Talb i.e. Talb-e-Ishhad.

8. Now comes the second Talb i.e. Talb-e-Ishhad. Mere sending of notice was not sufficient but service of its addressee was necessary to be proved, which is lacking in this case, because P.W.1 (Muhammad Shahid, Clerk Post Office) during cross examination deposed that on Ex.P1 address of the defendant (petitioner) is available, but Ex.P1 does not find mentioned caste and post office of the defendant. Akin to him, P.W.2 (Asif Ali, Postman), during cross examination, deposed that he could not tell who received the registry. Meaning thereby the service of addressee of the alleged notice was not affected. Even this aspect finds support from the fact the Acknowledgement Due, showing acceptance or refusal, was not brought on record; thus, this Talb was also not proved by the respondent as per mandate of law. In this regard reliance is placed on Muhammad Bashir and others v. Abbas Ali Shah (2007 SCMR 1105), Allah Ditta through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Anar (2013 SCMR 866), Khan Afsar v. Afsar Khan and others (2015 SCMR 311), Muhammad Iqbal and others v. Muhammad Hanif through L.Rs. (2016 CLC Note 89- Lahore), Muhammad Akbar v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others (2016 CLC 1402-Lahore), Saeeda Ghazala and 3 others v. Tahira Naz and 10 others (2016 CLC 1438-Lahore), Amir Khan v. Muhammad Taj (2017 CLC Note 94), Haji Makhan through Legal Representatives v. Mian Muhammad Zaman (2017 CLC Note 117), Ali Muhammad v. Malka Hussain (2017 CLC 463-Lahore) and Basharat Ali Khan v. Muhammad Akbar (2017 SCMR 309).  

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327

Provision of law provides that the period of limitation for a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption under this Act shall be four months from the date of the registration of the sale deed and section 31 of the Act

Plain reading of the above provision of law provides that the period of limitation for a suit to enforce a right of pre-emption under this Act shall be four months from the date of the registration of the sale deed and section 31 of the Act will not come in the way, because presumption of truth is attached to the act of the Registrar until and unless the same is proved otherwise and where a case is covered by any specific earlier clause i.e. (a), (b) & (c) of section 30 of the Act, clause (d) cannot be resorted to. In this regard reliance is placed on Qasim Ali v. Rehmatullah (2000 SCMR 1926), Maulana Nur-Ul-Haq v. Ibrahim Khalil (2000 SCMR 1305) and Mst. Kausar Parveen v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 2012 Supreme Court 760).

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327

Settled principle that when the concurrent findings suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence or material illegality and irregularity, the same can be rectified by exercising supervisory jurisdiction.

5. First of all, this Court deals with the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent to the effect that concurrent findings on facts have been recorded and reappraisal of evidence cannot be made while exercising powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; in this regard, it is observed that the concurrent findings when are found result of misreading and non-reading of evidence or result of material irregularity, the same can be interfered with in exercise of supervisory revisional jurisdiction. In this regard reliance is placed on Habib Khan and others v. Mst. Bakhtmina and others (2004 SCMR 1668), Ghulam Muhammad and 3 others v. Ghulam Ali (2004 SCMR 1001) and Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others (2010 SCMR 1630), wherein it has invariably been held:

 ’17. Indeed, the concurrent findings of three Courts below on a question of fact, if not based on misreading or non-reading of evidence and not suffering from any illegality or material irregularity effecting the merits of the case, are not open to question at the revisional stage, but where on record the position is contrary to it, then the revisional Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 115, C.P.C. or this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, are not denuded of their respective powers to interfere and upset such findings.’ In view of the above, it is settled principle that when the concurrent findings suffer from misreading and non-reading of evidence or material illegality and irregularity, the same can be rectified by exercising supervisory jurisdiction. 

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327

Statement on oath can resile from such offer prior to administration of oath.

4. Sh. Naveed Shehryar, Advocate for the petitioner by and large while relying upon the dicta laid down in Mst. Asifa Sultana Vs. Honest Traders, Lahore and another(PLD 1970 Supreme Court 331) accentuated with great concern that a party offering to abide by a statement on oath can resile from such offer prior to administration of oath. I have meticulously scanned this illustrious judgment and come to the conclusion that it was left upon the discretion of the Court dealing with such proposition to decide it on the facts and circumstances of each case. The facts of the case in hand as discussed hereinabove compelled me to exercise my discretion in favour of the respondent, who had an important witness of the impugned mutation along with him, which being substantial evidence was enough to splinter the genuineness of the mutation. As per reported judgments of the apex Court delivered in the following cases:- i). Saleem Ahmad Vs. Khushi Muhammad (1974 SCMR 224) ii). Muhammad Ali Vs. Major Muhammad Aslam and others (PLD 1990 SC 841) iii). Muhammad Mansha and 7 others Vs. Abdul Sattar and 4 others (1995 SCMR 795) iv). Nasrullah Jan Vs. Rastabaz Khan (1996 SCMR 108) It was authoritatively laid down that settlement to decide the matter on oath constituted a valid agreement from which parties could not conveniently wriggle out until contract was ex facie shown to be void or incapable of implementation, which is not the case of present petitioner. As such this Court is of the view that learned Addl. District Judge was justified in refusing to permit the petitioner to resile from his offer, but he was to abide by the same.  

Part of Judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
WP- Civil Suit
26983-12
2018 LHC 980

Concurrent findings on facts have been recorded and re-appraisal of evidence cannot be made while exercising powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgments and decrees and has further argued that the respondent has fulfilled the required Talbs in accordance with law; that the suit has been filed well within time prescribed under law, even the point of limitation has not been raised by the petitioner while submitting written statement. He adds that concurrent findings on facts have been recorded and re-appraisal of evidence cannot be made while exercising powers under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. He has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision in hand. Reliance has been placed on Sultan Ali and another v. Mirza Moazzam Baig (1987 MLD 2583(1)- Karachi), Muhammad Ramzan v. Ahmad Bux and another (1991 SCMR 716), National Bank of Pakistan v. Khushal Khan (PLD 1994 Peshawar 284), Messrs Tribal Friends Co. v. Province of Balochistan (2002 SCMR 1903) and Province of Punjab through Collector and others v. Muhammad Saleem and others (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 783).

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327

The principle of natural justice enshrined in maxim "audi alteram partem" is always deemed to be embedded in the statute and even if there is no such specific or express provisions,

24. From the above, it can safely be held that there was no need to afford personal hearing before removing the Petitioners for the reason that they had no vested rights to defend. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the case titled Nazir Ahmed Panhwar v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh and others (2009 PLC (C.S.) 161) and Abdul Haq Indhar and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Forest, Fishries and Livestock Department Karachi and 3 others (2000 SCMR 907) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held as under: 

“The principle of natural justice enshrined in maxim "audi alteram partem" is always deemed to be embedded in the statute and even if there is no such specific or express provisions, it would be deemed to be one of the parts of the State because no adverse action can be taken against a person without providing right of hearing to him. But at the same time this principle cannot be deemed to be of universal nature because before invoking/applying this principle one has to specify that the person against whom action is contemplated to be taken prima facie has a vested right to defend the action and in those cases where the claimant has no basis or entitlement, in his favour he would not be entitled for protection of the principles of natural justice. Principle of "audi alteram partem" is to be read into the relevant provision if the action is to affect any vested right of a person. If this rider is not placed for applying the principle of "audi alteram partem" then in certain cases where the law demands that action must be taken promptly shall defeat the ends of justice and there is very likelihood that the object is required to be achieved by an immediate action shall not be accomplished and in the meanwhile a person who has no vested right shall continue to enjoy the benefits of the deeds without any legal entitlement. It is high time to ensure that transaction between the individuals vis-a-vis the State are just, fair, open, honest and transparent. Therefore, action of individuals which is not honest and based on mala fides may not be allowed to exist merely for the reason that the principle of natural justice was violated.” 

Part of Judgment 
 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,LAHORE
Civil Miscellaneous (Writ)
27212-16
2017 LHC 4283

The question of limitation may be one of fact or of law,

In this regard reliance is placed on Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmad and others (PLD 1985 Supreme Court 153) wherein it has been held: 

‘The question of limitation may be one of fact or of law, if former the Court is not bound to go into it unless raised by the parties, and if latter the Court is as a general rule bound to raise an decide it, although not raised by the parties.’ 

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327

If the plea of limitation is not pressed it is the duty of the Court to determine such issue.

In this regard guidance can also be sought from Haji Muhammad Shah v. Sher Khan and others (PLD 1994 Supreme Court 294) wherein it has been held: 

‘With regard to limitation it is not disputed that question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and even if the plea of limitation is not pressed it is the duty of the Court to determine such issue.’

 Part of Judgment 

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Civil Revision (Against Interim Order) Decree US. 115 C.P.C
1227602.888-11

2017 LHC 4327

Revenue Authorities and if these Authorities had found one of the two legal heirs more fit and suitable as compared to the other

 is placed on Noor Muhammad v. Member, Board of Revenue and others (2006 SCMR 769), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under: 

“4. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the question of suitability was a matter decision about which was to be made by the Revenue Authorities and if these Authorities had found one of the two legal heirs more fit and suitable as compared to the other, the same could not be substituted on merits in Constitutional jurisdiction on the ground that it was without lawful authority unless it was established that the decision of the Revenue Authority was violative of any law on the subject render it without lawful authority.”


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

While dealing with the provisions of Order VIII, rules 1, 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

 The apex Court in the judgment reported as Sardar Sakhawatuddin and 3 others Vs. Muhammad Iqbal and 4 others (1987 SCMR 1365) while dealing with the provisions of Order VIII, rules 1, 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has held as under:- 
It is clear from the combined reading of Rules 1 and 9 that amongst others three types of written statements can be filed by a defendant. 

1. As a right without any formal permission of the Court. (Rule 1).
2. When it is so required by the Court to file a written statement (Rule 1 and Rule 9). 
3. When under some circumstances it is by the leave of the Court (Rule 9)

It is obvious from Rule 10 that no adverse results under these Rules are to follow on failure to file written statement in cases mentioned in items Nos.1 and 3 above. But penal consequences of “pronouncement of judgment against” him when the defendant fails to file written statement when “so required”- - -as is indicated in item No.2 above, would follow. As it is a penal provision it will have to be strictly construed. Hence wherever a reasonable doubt arises regarding its interpretation or implementation, it shall have to be resolved in favour of the victim of its application. Otherwise too, its requirements would have to be established like those of Order XVII, Rule 3 which is similarly penal in nature. See Industrial Sales and Service, Karachi and another V. Archifar Opal Laboratories Ltd., Karachi PLD 1969 Kar.418. 

Part of Judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT AT LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Civil Original Suit (C.O.S)
2462826.4088-16
2018 LHC 467

One month prior to institution of the suit is also not believable in view of the facts narrated above

Thus, the plea that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was not aware of the facts and all of a sudden came to know about the same about one month prior to institution of the suit is also not believable in view of the facts narrated above. In a reported case titled Muhammad Amir and others v. Mst. Beevi and others (2007 SCMR 614) the August Court of the Country held:-

 ’14. We will like to add that the contention that the donor perhaps did not know the mutation is, in the circumstances, not believable for the reason that a landowner is required to pay a number of Government dues on each crop and it is not possible that till his death which occurred after almost 24 years of the gift Lala remained unaware of attestation of the mutation. D.W.3 had stated that after one year after the gift Muhammad Amir had taken back the land from him but after two years it was again given to him for cultivation and at that time consolidation had already taken place. Thus, according to his evidence, consolidation had taken place somewhere in 1969-70. Since the consolidation, wands are made afresh it is not possible for a land owner not to come to know of a transaction in which his property stands alienated in favour of somebody else.’

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

Settled principle that concurrent findings cannot be considered as inviolable

6. It is a settled principle that concurrent findings cannot be considered as inviolable and High Court is competent to interfere if such findings are based on insufficient evidence, misreading of evidence, non-consideration of material evidence, erroneous presumption of facts and consideration of inadmissible evidence; thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff that this Court cannot make interference at this stage have no force and the same are discarded. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Sami v. Additional District Judge, Sargodha and 2 others (2007 SCMR 621), Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Ferozi and others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 213), Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Nawaz (PLD 2004 Supreme Court 489) and Dilawar Jan v. Gul Rehman and 5 others (PLD 2001 Supreme Court 149).

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

However, the order of the Court shall not debar the authorities concerned to decide each case afresh in accordance with law.

13. So far the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order was passed in violation of the judgments of this Court cited as Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sial v. Government of Pakistan, etc. (PLJ 1973 Lahore 290) & judgment dated 12.04.1983 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as Sardar Muhammad Aslam Sial and 3 others v. Government of Pakistan and 3 others (1985 SCMR 9) is misconceived as in the said case the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners only raised objection that he was not heard by the respondent-department before passing the orders of non-renewal of lease which plea turned correct and this Court set aside the order with observation that “however, the order of the Court shall not debar the authorities concerned to decide each case afresh in accordance with law.”, which observation was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan as “… that the authorities concerned were, however, not debarred from deciding each case afresh in accordance with law, is maintained.”, as such, the respondent-authority after hearing all the parties concerned passed order in consonance of the Scheme 1983 applicable on the case of the petitioners and no violation of the judgments (supra) has been committed by the respondent-department.

Part of judgment 
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Land
6747/19
2019 LHC 3711
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search