2020 S C M R 483
(a) Jurisdiction---
----Special remedy before an authority, availability of---Bar of jurisdiction of civil court---Where a special remedy was provided for under the law, it may not be bypassed and the Civil Courts should not be approached directly without exhausting the highest forum in the authority---Furthermore, the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was also impliedly barred where an alternate remedy had been provided under the law, provided that the authority was not exercised in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the authority.
(b) Document---
----Registered document--- Presumption of regularity--- When a document was registered or a public functionary prepared a document, took action or passed orders in discharge of his duties performed in due course of law, it had the presumption of regularity attached with it, and that presumption needed to be rebutted with strong evidence.
(c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 42 & 39---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10(2)---Suit for declaration and cancellation of a registered public document or attested mutation---Provincial Government and the relevant (revenue) authorities to be made proper parties to such a suit.
Non-impleadment of public functionaries in the suits for declaration and cancellation of public documents pertaining to immovable properties, prejudiced the rights of authorities to defend their actions and did not enable the Court to decide the matter effectively and adjudicate completely. Therefore, under Order I, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Provincial Government and the relevant authorities should be made proper parties to a suit in which an attested mutation or registered sale deed, etc. or otherwise a registered document, has been challenged.
Non-impleadment of the Provincial Government and relevant authorities who had sanctioned a document which has been impugned in a court of law, created a serious defect in the suit. This was not to say that the whole suit must always be defeated on this cause alone, as non-impleadment of proper parties in general did not always defeat a lis. Nonetheless, non-impleadment of proper parties created a serious irregularity and opened doors for fraud to be practiced by parties in connivance with one another, as well as created impediments for a court of law to effectively and completely adjudicate the matter after considering all aspects of the case.
(d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 42---Suit for declaration---Scope---Pre-existing rights---By filing a suit for declaration under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a party could get its pre-existing rights declared from the court but no fresh rights could be created by grant of such a decree.
2020 SCMR 483MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE (DECEASED) through LRs and others---PetitionersVersusMst. NOOR BIBI (DECEASED) through LRs. and others---Respondents
)){kind=link}
0 Comments