| Case ID |
2328ddef-bb0f-4db2-b2b1-ab675e23b51f |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.R. No. 1314 of 2006 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 08, 2006 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
Petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Nowshera seeking declaration to establish ownership and possession of the suit property based on deeds dated 26.3.1952 and 14.8.1952. The suit also sought a perpetual injunction restricting respondents/defendants from interfering with the property. The respondents resisted the suit by filing a written statement. The learned trial Court, after framing issues and considering evidence from both parties, dismissed the suit via judgment and decree dated 14.2.2006. Dissatisfied with the trial judgment, the petitioner appealed to the Court of learned District Judge, Nowshera, which also dismissed the appeal via judgment and decree dated 14.5.2006. The petitioner subsequently filed a revision petition alleging that the lower courts misread or did not read the evidence, failed to exercise jurisdiction, and did not consider the presumption of truth attached to the old documents. However, upon reviewing the record, it was determined that the petitioner failed to produce marginal witnesses and the scribe to prove the documents, nor did they apply to admit secondary evidence as required. The court held that withholding best evidence leads to a presumption against the party, citing relevant precedents. Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed in limine, affirming the decisions of the lower courts. |
| Summary |
In the landmark judgment delivered by the Peshawar High Court on November 8, 2006, in the case C.R. No. 1314 of 2006, Justice Talaat Qayyum Qureshi presided over a pivotal property possession dispute involving petitioner Shah Mulk and respondents Mst. Hussan Pari and another. Central to the case were two pivotal deeds dated March 26, 1952, and August 14, 1952, which Shah Mulk claimed established his ownership and possession of the property in question. The petitioner sought not only a declaration of ownership but also a perpetual injunction preventing the respondents from interfering with the said property.
However, the respondents contested the claims by filing a written statement, challenging the authenticity and admissibility of the deeds presented. The trial court meticulously framed the issues and evaluated the pro and contra evidence from both parties before dismissing the suit with a judgment on February 14, 2006. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Shah Mulk appealed to the District Judge's Court in Nowshera, but the appellate court upheld the lower judgment on May 14, 2006.
Persisting in his quest for redress, Shah Mulk filed a revision petition, alleging that the lower courts had failed to adequately interpret the evidence, particularly neglecting the presumption of truth attached to older documents as stipulated under the Civil Procedure Code of 1908 and the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order of 1984. He further contended that the trial court had not properly considered the inability to produce marginal witnesses and the scribe necessary to authenticate the deeds, arguing that these omissions warranted a reversal of the lower courts' decisions.
Justice Qureshi, upon a thorough examination of the case records, found that Shah Mulk had not fulfilled his burden of proof by failing to produce the necessary marginal witnesses and scribe to substantiate the authenticity of the deeds. Moreover, no application was evidently filed to admit secondary evidence as per legal requirements, nor was there any explicit plea regarding the death of the required witnesses presented to the trial court. Citing established jurisprudence, including the rulings in Anwar Ahmad Vs. Mst. Nafis Bano and Muhammad Mal Khan vs. Allah Yat Khan, the justice affirmed that the petitioner’s failure to produce the best evidence compelled the courts to presume against his claims.
Consequently, upholding the principles of evidentiary law and procedural adherence, Justice Qureshi dismissed the revision petition, thereby validating the dismissals by both the trial and appellate courts. This case underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural mandates in property disputes and the stringent requirements for evidence presentation, particularly in cases entailing long-dated documents. The judgment serves as a precedent for future cases in the Peshawar High Court and beyond, emphasizing the judiciary's role in ensuring that legal procedures are meticulously followed to uphold justice and equity in property law matters. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
TALAAT QAYYUM QURESHI, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. Walayat Khan Khattak
|
| Petitioners |
SHAH MULK
|
| Respondents |
another,
Mst. HUSSAN PARI
|
| Citations |
2007 SLD 3194,
2007 PLJ 70
|
| Other Citations |
Anwar Ahmad Vs. Mst. Nafis Bano through L.Rs (2005 SCMR 152),
Muhammad Mal Khan vs. Allah Yat Khan (2002 SCMR 235),
Mst. Gohar Sultan vs. Gul Waris Khan (PLD 2003 Peshawar 189)
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, (10 of 1984)
|
| Sections |
115,
Art. 72,
Art. 80,
Art. 129(g)
|