| Case ID |
0b887bec-9a1b-43b6-87bd-e7cf325cb3b7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Second Appeal from Original Order No. 327 of 1975 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 12, 1980 |
| Hearing Date |
Apr 07, 1980 |
| Decision |
The appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs throughout. The court found that the consent order passed in appeal is unassailable in this second appeal. The appellant failed to substantiate claims of coercion and undue influence regarding the thumb impression taken by the Additional District Judge. The presumption of correctness of judicial proceedings under Section 114 of the Evidence Act remains intact unless exceptionally strong evidence to the contrary is provided. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial proceedings and concluded that the consent order, being a result of mutual agreement, holds the force of a decree and cannot be challenged in this appeal. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the second appeal filed by Muhammad Zaman against the ejectment order issued by the Rent Controller, asserting wrongful eviction based on alleged coercion regarding a consent order. The Lahore High Court, presided by Karrar Hussain Zaidi, evaluated the evidence presented and the legal framework governing consent orders under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and the Evidence Act, 1872. The court highlighted that judicial proceedings are presumed to be performed correctly unless proven otherwise, reinforcing the sanctity of consent agreements in legal disputes. This decision underscores the significance of judicial integrity and the challenges faced by tenants in eviction cases, particularly regarding consent decrees. The ruling serves as a precedent for future cases involving consent orders and the burden of proof required to contest them. Legal practitioners must note the implications of this case regarding the presumption of correctness in judicial actions and the necessary standards to overturn such presumption, emphasizing the importance of thorough documentation and transparency in legal agreements. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
KARRAR HUSSAIN ZAIDI
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Naseem,
Muhammad Munir Bhatti
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD ZAMAN
|
| Respondents |
3 others,
ABDUL GHAFFAR
|
| Citations |
1980 SLD 654,
1980 PLD 582
|
| Other Citations |
Katta v. Venkatasayya and another A I R 1944 Mad. 450,
Reg v. Pestanji Dinsha and another (1873) 10 Bom. H C R 75
|
| Laws Involved |
Evidence Act (I of 1872),
West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
114,
15(4),
96(3)
|