| Case ID |
39a4c882-2de0-47ff-ac8f-247f479e32c5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Revision No. 1170 of 2002 |
| Decision Date |
|
| Hearing Date |
Nov 28, 2013 |
| Decision |
In the matter of Civil Revision No. 1170 of 2002, the Lahore High Court, under the honorable jurisdiction of Justice Mehmoood Maqbool Bajwa, rendered a comprehensive decision on 28th November 2013. The petitioner, Mst. Nazir and others, had instituted a suit seeking declaration and perpetual injunction against the respondents, Muhammad Iqbal and others, claiming proprietary and possessory rights over the disputed property. The initial decree was granted in favor of the petitioners by the trial court after considering divergent pleadings and substantial evidence. Dissatisfied with the judgment, the respondents appealed for revision, challenging the trial court's decree and the subsequent handling of additional evidence by the District Judge at Khanewal. The High Court meticulously examined the application for additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code and the provisions of the Specific Relief Act. The respondents’ inability to provide sufficient reasoning for the non-production of the requested evidence was highlighted, undermining their position. Emphasizing the importance of justice devoid of procedural technicalities, Justice Bajwa affirmed that the District Judge had correctly exercised discretion in allowing additional evidence, adhering to established legal provisions. The court found no jurisdictional defects in the trial court's decree and upheld the dismissal of the revision petition. Furthermore, the matter was remanded to the trial court for an expedited decision on the appeal, ensuring that justice is served without undue delays. The decision underscores the paramount importance of adhering to procedural norms while ensuring that substantive justice remains unimpeded by technicalities. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Civil Revision No. 1170 of 2002, adjudicated by the Lahore High Court, the core issue revolved around the rightful ownership and possession of a contested property recorded under Mutation No. 471 dated 7-4-1994. The petitioners, led by Mst. Nazir and two others, alleged fraudulent transactions during the mutation process, asserting that they were never properly involved in the Rapat entry and did not receive any sale proceeds, thereby questioning the validity of the proprietary and possessory claims by the respondents, Muhammad Iqbal and two others. The primary legal frameworks governing this case were the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) and the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), specifically sections O.XLI, R.27, and S.42. The case unfolded with the trial court allowing the petitioners' suit based on substantial evidence, prompting the respondents to seek revision. The appellate scrutiny focused on the procedural appropriateness of allowing additional evidence, including key documents and witness testimonies, under the statutory provisions. The respondents contested the trial court's decision, arguing that no valid reasons were provided for the failure to produce critical evidence, a claim that was meticulously examined by the High Court. Referencing pivotal case laws such as Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 1778) and Mustafa Kamal and others v. Daud Khan and others (2009 SCMR 221), the court emphasized the necessity of substantive evidence over procedural lapses, underscoring that justice should prevail without being hampered by technicalities. Justice Mehmoood Maqbool Bajwa, presiding over the case, highlighted the respondents' inability to justify the non-production of essential documents and witnesses, thus reinforcing the trial court's original decree in favor of the petitioners. The decision meticulously dissected the respondents' arguments, affirming that the discretion exercised by the District Judge was in line with established legal provisions and free from arbitrariness. By citing a multitude of relevant case laws, the High Court demonstrated a firm stance on upholding procedural integrity while ensuring that substantive justice remains unhindered. The final decree not only dismissed the revision petition but also remanded the case for an expedited decision on the appeal, thereby reinforcing the judiciary's commitment to timely and fair resolution of legal disputes. This case serves as a significant precedent in property law, highlighting the critical balance between procedural compliance and the pursuit of substantive justice, ensuring that rightful claims are honored without undue procedural barriers. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Mutation No. 471,
Rapat Roznamcha Waqiati No.279,
Hafiz Zafar Saleem,
Tehsildar Khanewal,
Rana Murid Hussain Patwari,
Revenue Patwari
|
| Judges |
MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA
|
| Lawyers |
Arab Hussain,
Ghulam Sarwar Awan,
M. Qalib Naveed Hashmi
|
| Petitioners |
,
Mst. NAZIRAN
|
| Respondents |
,
MUHAMMAD IQBAL
|
| Citations |
2014 SLD 2589,
2014 YLR 1350
|
| Other Citations |
Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah and 9 others 1992 SCMR 1778,
Mustafa Kamal and others v. Daud Khan and others 2009 SCMR 221,
Muhammad Anwar and others v. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others PLD 2013 SC 255,
Syed Muhammad Hassan Shah and others v. Mst. Binat-e-Fatima and another PLD 2008 SC 564,
Syed Sharif ul Hassan through L.Rs. v. Hafiz Muhammad Amin and others 2012 SCMR 1258,
Shahzada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 SC 139,
Malik Khuda Bakhsh and another v. Syed Hamid Ali Shah 1981 SCMR 196,
Bombay Cotton Manufacturing Co. v. R.B. Motilal Shivlal,
Abdul Majid and others v. Khalil Ahmad,
Prem Singh Hyanki and another v. Deb Singh Bisht and another,
Harry Young Lal v. Banjamin Cho Fook Lun and another,
Mumtaz and 3 others v. Mian Khan,
Ramzan Ali Ansari v. Ghulam Qadir and others,
Abdul Rashid v. Bashiran and another,
Syed Rafiul Qadre Naqvi v. Syeda Safia Sultana and others,
Ghulam Rasool through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others,
Ratilal Balabhai Nazar v. Ranchhodbhai Shankarbhai Patel and another
|
| Laws Involved |
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
|
| Sections |
O.XLI, R.27,
S.42
|