Summary: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----Challenge to mutation after twenty-two years---Unexplained delay---Suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction---Mutation No.684 was sanctioned on 15.03.1980, whereas respondent No.1 instituted suit on 16.05.2002 after lapse of more than twenty-two years alleging fraud, forgery and misrepresentation---Supreme Court held that unexplained delay in challenging a mutation renders the claim legally untenable---Respondent remained completely silent for more than two decades and took no step to question validity of mutation or underlying sale transaction---No convincing or legally acceptable explanation was furnished for such inordinate delay---A person who sleeps over his rights for decades cannot subsequently seek to unsettle long-standing entries in revenue record and disturb settled rights of parties---Law of limitation is designed to bring certainty and finality to legal relations and prevent reopening of stale claims---Suit was clearly and hopelessly barred by limitation. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Miskeen and others v. Noor Muhammad and others 2011 SCMR 808 • Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 230 • Ghulam Haider and others v. Wali Muhammad and others 2008 SCMR 1425 • Atta Muhammad v. Maula Bakhsh 2007 SCMR 1446 • Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 • United Bank Limited and others v. Noor-Un-Nisa and others 2015 SCMR 380 • Lahore Development Authority v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another PLD 2010 SC 705 • Sardar Anwar Ali Khan and 10 others v. Sardar Baqir Ali through Legal Heirs and 4 others 1992 SCMR 2435 (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----S. 39---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 91---Fraud alleged in respect of mutation/sale transaction---Fraud vitiates all solemn acts, but must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved---Supreme Court reiterated that fraud vitiates solemn acts and any instrument, deed, judgment or decree obtained through fraud is a nullity, but allegation of fraud cannot be accepted on mere assertion---Fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved through reliable evidence---Question of fraud involves finding of fact regarding conduct of party concerned---Even where fraud is alleged in relation to an instrument or transaction, party challenging such instrument is required to seek cancellation within prescribed limitation period---Where document is alleged to have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, matter falls within S.39 of Specific Relief Act and suit seeking declaration/cancellation must be filed within three years under Art.91 of Limitation Act from date when alleged fraud comes to knowledge of plaintiff---Respondent failed to produce convincing evidence of fraud and remained silent for more than two decades; plea of fraud could not be used to circumvent law of limitation. Cited Cases: • Mst. Zulaikhan Bibi through LRs and others v. Mst. Roshan Jan and others 2011 SCMR 986 • Muhammad Younus Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. 1993 SCMR 618 • Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)---- ----Proof of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation---Independent and reliable evidence required---Respondent alleged that Mutation No.684 dated 15.03.1980 was procured through fraud, forgery and misrepresentation and without his consent or authority---Trial Court and First Appellate Court, after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, held that respondent failed to prove fraud, forgery or misrepresentation through independent evidence---Supreme Court held that such allegations remained unsubstantiated and were rightly disbelieved by subordinate Courts---Mutation No.684 and Exchange Mutation No.683 were entered and sanctioned on same day and identifying witnesses were the same, which negatived respondent’s stance that he had not visited office of Patwari on relevant date---Respondent remained confined to his solitary statement and did not produce independent witnesses sufficient to dislodge documentary proof brought on record. (d) Revenue record---- ----Long-standing mutation entries---Presumption of correctness---Jamabandi---Revenue entries remaining unquestioned for decades---Supreme Court held that long-standing entries in revenue record ought not to be unsettled lightly, particularly where they have remained unquestioned for considerable period and rights have subsequently accrued on their basis---Once mutation is duly sanctioned and incorporated into Jamabandi, it forms part of regular revenue record and carries statutory presumption of truth unless rebutted by strong and cogent evidence---Mutation in question remained part of revenue record for more than two decades without challenge---Respondent produced no convincing evidence to rebut presumption attached to revenue entries---Courts below were justified in giving due weight to revenue record and holding that respondent failed to discharge heavy burden required to displace statutory presumption. Cited Cases: • Waris Khan and 18 others v. Col. Humayun Shah and 41 others PLD 1994 SC 336 • Mst. Grana through legal heirs v. Sahib Kamala Bibi PLD 2014 SC 167 • Abdul Ahad and others v. Roshan Din and others PLD 1979 SC 890 • Ghulam Haider and others v. Wali Muhammad and others 2008 SCMR 1425 • Muhammad Hussain and others v. Muhammad Shafi and others 2008 SCMR 230 (e) Mutation---- ----Procedural irregularity in attestation---Effect on proved sale transaction---Mutation entries do not themselves create title, but where underlying transaction is proved through credible evidence, technical defects in mutation proceedings cannot invalidate transaction---Supreme Court held that even if certain procedural irregularities in attestation of mutation were assumed, such irregularities by themselves would not invalidate an otherwise established transaction of sale---Subordinate Courts examined oral and documentary evidence and concurrently held that transaction reflected in mutation was genuine and respondent had failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation---Procedural objections regarding mutation proceedings could not annul transaction or justify setting aside concurrent findings. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Ghafoor Khan and another 2000 SCMR 519 • Muhammad Afzal and others v. Province of Punjab 2001 SCMR 593 • Nawab Din v. Giani 2008 SCMR 657 (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference---Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently dismissed suit after proper appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, holding that sale transaction was genuine, fraud was not proved and suit was barred by limitation---Supreme Court held that concurrent findings of fact cannot ordinarily be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction unless shown to suffer from misreading or non-reading of evidence, perversity, illegality or material irregularity affecting merits---Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and does not convert High Court into third court of fact---High Court reassessed evidence and substituted its own conclusions without identifying misreading, non-reading, material illegality or perversity in findings of subordinate Courts---Such approach was inconsistent with settled limits of revisional jurisdiction and amounted to impermissible interference with concurrent findings of fact. Cited Cases: • Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others 2010 SCMR 1630 • Mst. Tayyeba Ambareen and another v. Shafqat Ali Kiyani and another 2023 SCMR 246 • Nawab Din v. Giani 2008 SCMR 657 • Muhammad Ishaq and others v. Ghafoor Khan and another 2000 SCMR 519 • Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another 2014 SCMR 1469 • Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others 2014 SCMR 161 • Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim, etc. 2017 SCMR 679 • Muhammad Sarwar and others v. Hashmal Khan and others PLD 2022 SC 13 • Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan PLD 2022 SC 21 • Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLJ 2023 SC 8 • Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb 2024 SCMR 916 (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----S. 115---Difference between misreading/non-reading and misappreciation of evidence---High Court’s limits in revision---Supreme Court reiterated that scope of appellate and revisional jurisdiction must not be confused---Revisional Court cannot upset finding of fact merely because another view appears more plausible---Interference is permissible only where finding is result of misreading, non-reading, perverse or absurd appraisal of material evidence, jurisdictional error, illegality or serious miscarriage of justice---If facts have been justly tried by two Courts and same conclusion has been reached concurrently, revisiting evidence in second appeal or revision to draw another conclusion would offend doctrine of finality---High Court cannot independently reassess evidence to supplant its own conclusion unless findings below are legally flawed. Cited Cases: • Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others 2010 SCMR 1630 • Salamat Ali and others v. Muhammad Din and others PLJ 2023 SC 8 • Mst. Farzana Zia and others v. Mst. Saadia Andaleeb 2024 SCMR 916 (h) Revenue record / Limitation---- ----Third-party rights and finality of long-standing entries---Mutation remaining incorporated for decades---Effect---Supreme Court held that where revenue entries have remained unchallenged for prolonged period and third-party rights have intervened, challenges to such entries must be viewed with great circumspection and ordinarily ought not to be entertained---In present case, during long interregnum of over twenty-two years, third-party rights had come into existence, further strengthening need to uphold sanctity and finality of long-standing revenue entries---Belated suit challenging mutation could not be permitted to unsettle settled rights. Disposition: Appeals were allowed; judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by Islamabad High Court in Civil Revision No.410 of 2017 was set aside; concurrent judgments and decrees of Trial Court dated 17.03.2017 and First Appellate Court dated 11.11.2017 were restored; civil suit filed by respondent No.1 was dismissed; no order as to costs; connected CMAs No.12138 and 12580 of 2019 and CMA No.2581 of 2022 were disposed of as infructuous.

Summary: -----Quote: When proceedings concerning Trade Mark in question are pending in Court, the application for revocation, invalidation or rectification under section 73, 80 and 96 of The Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001 shall be filed before the said Court in view of the provision prevailing at the relevant time, however after the promulgation of The Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, the matters are to be proceeded by the Intellectual Property Tribunal. -----Background: The appellant filed multiple suits for permanent injunction, damages, and an injunction against infringement of his registered trademark "Hafiz Pipe Store" with Logo (Trade Mark No.210893 in Class 35). During the pendency of these suits, Asghar Ali (respondent No. 2) filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks seeking revocation, invalidation, and rectification of Qasim's trademark. The Registrar allowed this application ex parte, leading to the rejection of Qasim’s suits by the Additional District Court based on the cancellation of the trademark. Muhammad Qasim subsequently filed these appeals challenging both the Registrar's and the District Court's orders. -----Issues: 1- Jurisdiction of Registrar in Pending Court Cases: Whether the Registrar of Trade Marks had the authority to decide on the revocation application when related suits were already pending in the District Court. -----2- Impact of Trademark Revocation on Civil Suits: Whether the civil suits seeking damages for trademark infringement and passing off could be dismissed solely based on the trademark's revocation. -----3- Exclusive Jurisdiction of Intellectual Property Tribunal: Whether the intellectual property disputes should be handled by the Intellectual Property Tribunal under the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, rather than the District Court. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside both the Registrar's order and the District Court's decision to reject the suits. --Jurisdiction of Registrar: According to Sections 73(4), 80(4), and 96(2) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, if related proceedings are pending in a court, any application for revocation, invalidation, or rectification of a trademark should be directed to that court. Since Qasim’s suits regarding the trademark were already pending in the District Court, Asghar Ali’s application for revocation should have been transferred to the court where these suits were pending. The Registrar's order dated 12.05.2014 was thus found to be without jurisdiction. --Impact of Trademark Revocation on Civil Suits: The appellant’s suits sought relief for trademark infringement and damages for passing off. Passing off is independent of trademark registration, as it addresses the misrepresentation of a business or product, regardless of registration status. The revocation of the trademark did not render the appellant’s suits unsustainable, and thus, the rejection of the plaints was found unjustified. --Intellectual Property Tribunal Jurisdiction: Following the Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012, intellectual property disputes, including those concerning revocation, invalidation, and infringement, are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Tribunal. The court directed that, on remand, the Intellectual Property Tribunal, instead of the District Court, will handle these matters. -----Citations/Precedents: Sections 73(4), 80(4), and 96(2), Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 – Specify that trademark-related proceedings pending in a court must be handled by that court. Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act, 2012 – Establishes exclusive jurisdiction for intellectual property disputes under the Intellectual Property Tribunal. ITALFARMACO S.P.A. v. HIMONT PHARMACEUTICALS (2017 CLD 1382) – Supports transferring invalidation applications to the court where related proceedings are pending. The State v. Naeemullah Khan (2001 SCMR 1461) – Defines “proceedings” as all legal steps from commencement to disposal.

Summary: CMA: S.19 Appeal under intellectual property Act by plaint of permanent Injunction and trademark suit against refusal of the tribunal to grant temporary injunction. (a) Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 –– ---- S. 40 – Trade mark infringement – Exclusive right to use registered trade mark – Interim injunction – Appellant, the registered proprietor of the trade mark "Kohinoor Fair Price Shop", sought to restrain the respondent from using the name "Kohinoor Fabrics", alleging trade mark infringement – Trial court dismissed interim relief application without examining the statutory requirements under S. 40 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 – Held, under S. 40, infringement is established when a mark identical or deceptively similar to a registered trade mark is used in trade without authorization – The trial court failed to consider whether the respondent’s use of the word "Kohinoor" created deception or was detrimental to the appellant’s registered trade mark – Matter required adjudication under the legal framework of the 2001 Ordinance, rather than the repealed Trade Marks Act, 1940 – Impugned order set aside, and interim relief application remanded for fresh decision in accordance with the relevant law. (b) Intellectual Property Law – Prior User vs. Registered Proprietor –– ---- Trade mark rights – Prior user of an unregistered trade mark cannot claim superiority over a registered proprietor – Appellant relied on Pioneer Cement Ltd. v. Fecto Cement Ltd. (2013 CLD 201), affirming that a registered proprietor holds exclusive rights to use the mark – Respondent claimed prior use of the name "Kohinoor Fabrics", arguing that "Kohinoor" is a generic term – Held, while prior use may be a defense in passing-off actions, it does not override the statutory protection granted to a registered trade mark holder – Matter required determination of whether respondent’s use of "Kohinoor" created likelihood of confusion under trade mark laws. (c) Passing Off and Likelihood of Confusion –– ---- Elements of passing off – Respondent argued that "Kohinoor" was a general name and not identical to the appellant’s registered mark "Kohinoor Fair Price Shop" – Held, likelihood of confusion must be assessed considering overall similarity, trade channels, and consumer perception – The Supreme Court in Messrs Tabaq Restaurant v. Messrs Tabaq Restaurant (1987 SCMR 1090) discussed passing-off actions, holding that infringement may arise even if an identical trade mark is not used, provided confusion is likely – Matter required detailed inquiry into deceptive similarity and unfair advantage. (d) Judicial Review of Trade Mark Infringement –– ---- Failure to apply relevant law – The trial court relied on 1987 SCMR 1090, which pertained to the repealed Trade Marks Act, 1940, and failed to apply S. 40 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 – The Sindh High Court in Soneri Travel and Tours Ltd. v. Soneri Bank Ltd. (2011 CLD 193) emphasized that trade mark infringement must be assessed under modern trade mark principles – Held, trial court’s approach was legally flawed, and interim relief application should have been decided in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. Disposition: ---- Appeal allowed – Impugned order dated 06.05.2024 set aside – Application for interim relief reinstated and remanded to the trial court for decision in accordance with the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act, 1877 ----S. 22---Suit for specific performance of contract---Execution and proof of agreement---Readiness and willingness of vendee---Discretion of Court---Plaintiff (appellant) sought declaration with permanent injunction, alleging that the agreement to sell dated 03.02.2014 was fraudulent, whereas defendants (respondents) filed a suit for specific performance---Trial Court dismissed plaintiff's suit and decreed respondents' suit for specific performance---Appellant contended that the agreement and related payment receipts (Exh.D2, Exh.D3, Exh.D4) were forged and not proved in accordance with Art. 17 read with Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Respondents contended that the agreement stood proved and that they had been willing and ready to pay the balance consideration amount---Trial Court directed forensic verification of appellant's signatures, but Punjab Forensic Science Agency could not conclusively determine genuineness due to insufficient specimen signatures---Court observed that appellant's conduct, including failure to facilitate signature verification, led to an adverse inference against him---Execution of agreement was established, and substantial performance was found through payment of earnest money and transfer of US$ 42,000/- to appellant's bank account---Held, specific performance is an equitable relief, and Court must determine which party is avoiding contractual obligations---Where agreement stands proved and substantial performance is shown, discretion may be exercised in favor of enforcement---Respondents directed to deposit Rs. 45,500,000/- as balance consideration within two months. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ----Arts. 17 & 79---Proof of documents---Forensic verification---Failure to provide sufficient specimen signatures---Adverse inference against appellant---Where appellant failed to cooperate in verification of questioned signatures on payment receipts and did not contest credited bank transactions, presumption of authenticity of agreement arose in favor of respondents. (c) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) ----O. XLI, R. 25---Additional issue framed at appellate stage---Reference to Trial Court for factual determination---Appellate Court exercised power under O.XLI, R.25, CPC, directing Trial Court to refer disputed receipts for forensic examination---Trial Court's report inconclusive due to lack of specimen signatures---Held, appellant's conduct in avoiding verification justified drawing of an adverse inference against him. (d) Property Law---Joint ownership---Partition---Decree for specific performance operating on co-owned property---Appellant's step-brother (Respondent No.6) contended that suit property was jointly owned and required partition before transfer---Held, decree shall operate only to the extent of appellant’s share, with proper partition proceedings to be undertaken by the Executing Court to determine the extent of divisible property before effecting transfer. Disposition: Appeals disposed of in modified terms---Respondents directed to deposit balance consideration within two months; decree to operate only on appellant's share.

Summary: ----Quote: 1. The Courts should stop the practice of frivolous claims and efforts of the parties to prolong the litigations. 2. The Court and the Tribunals should exercise their power in respect of imposition of reasonable cost upon unscrupulous litigants so as the curb the practice of institution frivolous and vexatious cases. 3. This case is a classic example of dragging the contesting respondents unnecessarily through frivolous petitions up till this Court with a calculated effort to delay the matter unnecessarily for more than five years while the suit is still at the very initial stage. -----Background: Respondents filed a civil suit against the petitioners, seeking a declaration of ownership with a permanent injunction and possession over a disputed mountain property, claiming it as ancestral land. The property, shown as "point-A" in the attached site plan, is allegedly under the respondents' possession, while proforma defendants are associated with areas marked "points-B, C, and D." Petitioners, named as defendants, challenged the jurisdiction of the civil court in Samarbagh, Dir Lower, claiming that the property lies outside its territorial limits. Instead of submitting a written statement, petitioners filed an application to reject or return the plaint for lack of jurisdiction. -----Issues: 1- Jurisdictional Question: Whether the disputed property falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Court in Samarbagh, Dir Lower. -----2- Appointment of Local Commission: Whether the trial court's decision to appoint a local commission for determining the boundary position was appropriate. -----3- Revisional Court’s Decision: Whether the dismissal of the revision petition by the Additional District Judge was justified. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The trial court appointed a local commission to ascertain the exact location of the disputed property, as the boundary between Dir Upper and Dir Lower lacks clear revenue records. Petitioners' application for rejection/return of the plaint was neither accepted nor dismissed by the trial court; instead, the trial court opted for a fact-finding approach through the local commission. Petitioners challenged this approach, first before the Revisional Court, which upheld the trial court’s order, and subsequently through a writ petition before the higher court. The higher court noted that the petitioners had no substantial grounds for continuing their challenge, as there was no adverse order directly affecting them. Thus, the court viewed the actions of the petitioners as dilatory tactics. -----Citations/Precedents: Appointment of Local Commissions: The authority of civil courts to appoint local commissions for jurisdictional clarity in property disputes. Section 145, Cr.P.C.: Prior proceedings under this section, cited by petitioners to argue that the disputed property should fall under Dir Upper’s jurisdiction.

Summary: ----Quote: 1. In case of co-owner and with respect to a joint property a suit for declaration, permanent injunction as well as for possession would not be maintainable against a co-owner and the proper course for an aggrieved co- owner of a joint property is to file a partition suit/application in which all the other co-owners are to be impleaded. 2. A co-owner cannot enforce a private partition through filing of a civil suit and a plea with respect to a private partition could validly be laid before the revenue hierarchy and if all the stake holders admit and endorse the same then the revenue hierarchy is bound to affirm the same, however, if even one of the co-owner controverts such private partition then, the revenue hierarchy statutorily is bound to go for official partition by determining the shares of each co-owner as per revenue record. 3. When two foras below have correctly and concurrently applied the law on the subject and if they have not committed any material illegality or irregularly, then the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere in the same. -----Background: The petitioners filed a civil suit seeking a declaration and a permanent injunction against the respondents concerning a jointly owned property. The trial court initially rejected the petitioners' plaint based on maintainability under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The petitioners challenged this decision in an appellate court, which upheld the trial court's judgment. Consequently, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the High Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether a co-owner can file a suit for declaration and injunction against another co-owner without seeking partition of the jointly owned property. -----2- Whether a private partition can be enforced without acknowledgment and official endorsement by all stakeholders in the revenue record. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court dismissed the revision petition, affirming that: A co-owner cannot seek a declaration or injunction against another co-owner without filing for partition, as established jurisprudence dictates that such disputes should be resolved through partition suits. The petitioners' reliance on a private partition was legally insufficient, as private arrangements require mutual consent and formal recording in revenue records to be enforceable. The court emphasized that only the revenue hierarchy has jurisdiction to affirm and implement private partitions. The concurrent judgments of the lower courts, based on a thorough application of the law, were deemed correct and free from procedural or legal irregularities. Thus, the High Court found no grounds for interference under its revisional jurisdiction. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Roshan Ara Begum etc-Vs-Muhammad Banaras etc (2016 YLR 1300) Zamurad Khan-Vs-Ghulam Rabbani (2023 MLD 733) Khan Sher and others-Vs-Israil Shah and others (2016 CLC 176) Ashiq Hussain-Vs-Prof: Muhammad Aslam and others (2004 MLD 1844) Lajbar Khan and others-Vs-Kamin Khan and others (2023 CLC 690) Syed Musarrat Shah and another-Vs-Syed Ahmed Shah alias Lal Bacha and 8 others (PLD 2012 Peshawar 151) Nasir Ali vs. Muhammad Asghar (2022 SCMR 1054) Salamat Ali and others vs. Muhammad Din and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 353) Muhammad Sarwar and others vs. Hashmal Khan and others (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 13) Mst. Zarsheda vs. Nobat Khan (PLD 2022 Supreme Court 21) Shahbaz Gul and others v. Muhammad Younas Khan and others (2020 SCMR 867) Khudadad vs. Syed Ghazanfar Ali Shah alias S. Inaam Hussain & others (2022 SCMR 933)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, challenged the judgments of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, which dismissed his suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding ownership of land measuring 04-Kanal 11-Marla. The petitioner claimed ownership through a registered sale deed from 1975, but the respondent (Province of Punjab) had canceled earlier mutations based on fraudulent claims of Faiz Muhammad, who had initially been allotted the land. The petitioner argued that the sale deed in his favor was valid and could not be canceled, especially after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws in 1975. -----Issues: 1- Whether the mutation in favor of Faiz Muhammad, from whom the petitioner derived his title, was valid or fraudulent. 2- Whether the Provincial Government had the authority to cancel the allotment and mutations made by the Central Government. 3- Whether the petitioner’s claim could be upheld after the repeal of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958. 4- Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the petitioner’s suit for declaration. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the original allotment to Faiz Muhammad was fraudulent, and the subsequent transactions based on that allotment were also void. Fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, and any rights derived from fraudulent transactions are automatically invalid. The court emphasized that fraudulent transactions are subject to review and cancellation, even after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws in 1975. The court found that under Section 10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner had the authority to investigate fraudulent allotments and cancel such allotments if necessary. The fact that Faiz Muhammad’s allotment was fraudulent meant that the Provincial Government acted within its authority to cancel it. The petitioner’s claim that the transaction could not be reopened after the repeal of the Evacuee Laws was rejected. The court ruled that fraud does not fall under the protection of being a past and closed transaction, and fraudulent allotments can be reopened and investigated even after the repeal of the relevant laws. The court concluded that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate that the original allotment to Faiz Muhammad was genuine. As a result, the petitioner’s claim to the land, based on subsequent transactions from Faiz Muhammad, could not be upheld. The court found no illegality or error in the decisions of the lower courts. The revision petition was dismissed, and the concurrent judgments of the Civil Judge and Additional District Judge were upheld. -----Citations/Precedents: Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 236) Talib Hussain v. Member, Board of Revenue (2003 SCMR 549) Khawaja Bashir Ahmad v. The Additional Settlement Commissioner (1991 SCMR 1604) Messrs Beach Luxury Hotels, Karachi v. Messrs Anas Muneer Ltd. (2016 SCMR 222) Sheikh Rauf Ahmad v. Dr. Nazir Saeed (2020 YLR Note 52)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance of an oral agreement, along with a declaration and injunction, against the respondents concerning agricultural land measuring 37 Ghuntas in Survey No. 42, Deh Qadirpur Taluka, and District Ghotki. The suit (F.C. No. 27 of 1999) was decreed in favor of the petitioner ex-parte on May 20, 2005. Respondents No.2-6 appealed the decision, and the District Judge, Ghotki, overturned the trial court's decision on August 18, 2006. The petitioner filed a civil revision in the High Court, which upheld the appellate court's decision on November 29, 2021. The petitioner has now brought the matter before the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner proved the existence of an oral agreement of sale according to the law. 2- Whether the decisions of the lower courts were justified based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that an oral agreement requires the clearest and most satisfactory evidence to be enforceable. The petitioner failed to provide sufficient details of the oral agreement, such as the date, time, place, names of witnesses, and specific conditions, in the pleadings. Additionally, the petitioner did not justify the authority of Respondent No.1's father to enter into the agreement on her behalf. The court found the receipt for payment to be dubious, as it was not corroborated by the testimony of key witnesses. The testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses were inconsistent and did not support the petitioner's claim. The Supreme Court emphasized that no amount of evidence can substitute for the lack of proper pleadings. The court found no misreading or non-reading of evidence by the lower courts and held that the findings of the appellate court and the High Court were justified and plausible. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. ----Citations/Precedents: Maqbool Ahmad v. Suleman Ali (PLD 2003 SC 31) Muhammad Riaz and others v. Mst. Badshah Begum and others (2021 SCMR 605) Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa and others (2019 SCMR 74) Government of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad (PLD 1976 SC 469) Abrar Ahmad v. Irshad Ahmed (PLD 2014 SC 331) ----Quote: The law regarding oral agreements is clear; all terms and conditions agreed upon orally between the parties must be explicitly stated in detail in the pleadings and substantiated with strong and independent evidence.

Summary: Background: The appellants challenged an order passed on 15.11.2023, which decreed a suit for declaration, permanent, and mandatory injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (respondents) without a trial. The suit pertained to 126 acres of land in NC-309, Deh Joreji, Bin Qasim Town, Karachi. The appellants argued that the suit was decreed without resolving objections and without a proper trial. ----Issues: 1- Whether the suit was properly registered and whether office objections were addressed. 2- Whether there was an admission or consent justifying a decree under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. 3- Whether the application of Order X and XV read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC was appropriate in this case. 4- Whether the learned Single Judge considered the necessary prerequisites and pleadings before passing the decree. 5- Whether the decree was a result of collusion or undue haste without examining the triable issues, especially given the government's involvement and claims. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court noted that the suit was not registered properly, and objections were not decided before the decree was awarded. The court found no admission within the frame of Order XII Rule 6 CPC that justified the decree. The alleged consent was denied by the Assistant Advocate General. The court observed that the application of Order X and XV read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC was not demonstrated in the impugned order. The necessary conditions for their application were missing. The court highlighted that no written statement was filed by any defendants, and the prerequisites for applying these provisions were not met. The government's categorical dispute over the plaintiffs' claims made it a triable issue. The court emphasized that even if the order was considered a consent decree, the relief granted should align with the suit's frame, especially considering the government's ownership of the land. The possibility of collusive proceedings was not ruled out. The court concluded that the impugned order was hasty and undetermined, with unresolved issues requiring proper adjudication. ----Citations/Precedents: Directorate of Small Industries, Govt. of Baluchistan v. Civil Aviation Authority (1993 MLD 1836) Outcome: The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for proceedings in accordance with the law.

Summary: the appellant contested the preliminary judgment and decree dated 08.05.2023 issued by the Civil Judge, Islamabad. The suit, initiated by the respondents on 26.06.2021, sought a declaration, separate possession through partition, rendition of accounts, recovery of mesne profits, and permanent and mandatory injunction for House No. 181, Gomal Road, Sector E-7, Islamabad. The learned civil court partially decreed the suit and appointed a local commission to determine the value of the shares of the respondents and the appellant. ----Issues: 1. Whether the suit property, House No. 181, can be partitioned given the CDA regulations. 2. Whether the suit was maintainable without the impleadment of all relevant parties. 3. Whether the suit for partition should proceed given the objections to pecuniary jurisdiction. 4. Whether the appellant's exclusive possession of the suit property should continue. 5. Whether the respondents have a right to access and sell their share in the suit property. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Holding: The court upheld the preliminary judgment and decree dated 08.05.2023, dismissing the appeal with costs. The court found that the suit property could not be partitioned as per CDA regulations and that the property should be auctioned with proceeds divided among the co-owners. Reasoning: The court reasoned that: The suit property, consisting of House No. 181-A and House No. 181-B, could not be bifurcated according to CDA regulations as the plot size did not meet the minimum requirements for subdivision. The objections regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction and maintainability were found to be attempts to delay the proceedings. The appellant had previously consented to the partition of the property, making her objections invalid. The appellant’s refusal to share possession with her co-owners and her attempts to involve other parties were seen as inequitable conduct. The learned civil court correctly appointed a local commission to assess the value of the shares and proposed a public auction for House No. 181-A, ensuring fair division of proceeds among the co-owners. Outcome: The appeal was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable to each of the respondents. The court affirmed the learned civil court's decision for public auction of the suit property, ensuring an equitable distribution of the sale proceeds. ----Citations/Precedents: Ghulam Rasool Vs. Muhammad Khalid (2006 YLR 2289) Azhar Hussain Shah Vs. Member Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2016 YLR 1489) Mazullah Khan Vs. Taraja Begum (2020 YLR 2206) Ghulam Nabi Vs. Faisal Naveed (2003 SCMR 1794) Abdul Ghani Vs. Yasmeen Khan (2011 SCMR 837) Sultan Vs. Muhammad Hussain (2006 MLD 659) Muhammad Umar Khan Vs. Aziz Begum (2001 MLD 448) Aamir Masood Vs. Khurshid Begum (2001 MLD 159) Muhammad Adil Vs. Muhammad Amir (2023 SCMR 1032) Muhammad Haneef Vs. Abdul Samad (PLD 2009 SC 751) Manzoor Hussain Vs. Muhammad Nawaz (2010 SCMR 1042) Allah Bukhsh Vs. Bakhtawar (2018 CLC 1070)