Summary: (Against the judgment dated 01.06.2016 passed by Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in C.R. No. 382 of 2010). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIII, Rr. 1 & 2---Suit for declaration and injunction---Withdrawal of suit---Formal defect--- Proof--- Petitioners / plaintiffs were aggrieved of order passed by High Court declining withdrawal of suit with permission to file fresh suit on the plea of some formal defect---Validity---Petitioners / plaintiffs could not refer to any 'formal defect' which could be: misdescription of partis, incorrect valuation, procedural errors or technical defects, which did not affect merits of the case and if such defects went to the root of the case, the same could not be considered as formal defects---When there was a verdict against petitioners / plaintiffs existing in field, they could not be allowed to step back, without disclosing formal defect in the plaint by using shoulders of Court---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality, and the law on the subject had correctly and judiciously been appreciated and construed---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Yar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Amin (deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 464; Khawaja Bashir Ahmed and Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Messrs Martrade Shipping and Transport and others PLD 2021 SC 373 and Haji Muhammad Boota and others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 2003 SC 979 rel. Mian Muhammad Tayyib Watto, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Assisted by: Owais Nasir, L.C. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 2025.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115, O. XXIX, R. 1 & O. XLI, R. 1---Suit for declaration and injunction---Maintainability---Locus standi to file revision application---Illegal use of electricity---Proof---Onus to prove---Respondent / plaintiff assailed excessive bill of electricity issued by petitioner / Peshawar Electric Supply Company---Suit and appeal were concurrently decided against petitioner / Company---Validity---Signatory of Vakalatnama was not competent to file civil revision on behalf of petitioner / Company---Memorandum of appeal was not signed by Chief Executive or legally authorized person and this was against the mandate of O. XXIX, R. 1, C.P.C.---In a suit by or against corporation any pleading could be signed and verified on behalf of corporation by Secretary or Director or other principal officer of the corporation, who was liable to depose to the facts of the case---Memorandum of appeal could be signed as per O. XLI, R. 1, C.P.C. by appellant or his pleader, and a Revision Petition could also be signed by petitioner or its pleader as revisional jurisdiction was a part of general appellate jurisdiction of superior Courts---As a beneficiary, the petitioner / Company was required to prove allegation of illegal use of electricity and genuineness of assessments so imposed on respondent / plaintiff but no evidence was brought on record---Electricity meter of respondent / plaintiff was defective and she had applied for its replacement which was not replaced---High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below, as there was no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd Lahore PLD 1971 SC 550; Messrs Razo (Pvt) Ltd v. Director Karachi City Region Employees Old Age Benefit Institution and others 2005 CLD 1208; Hasnain Cotex Ltd and 2 others v. Jasim Khan 2012 YLR 2743; Shankar Ramchandra v. Krishnaji Dattatreya AIR 1970 SC 1 and Atta Muhammad v. Muhammad Bakhsh PLD 2004 Lahore 300 rel. Muhammad Anwar Awan for Petitioners. Malik Muhammad Asad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th March, 2025.

Summary: C.M.A. No. 3760 of 2022. (For setting aside ex-parte order). C. A. No. 613 of 2020 and C.M.A. No. 3760 of 2022, decided on 3rd March, 2025. Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Auction of land---Matching bid of highest bid---No concluded contact vesting interest in property---Appellants/plaintiffs were occupants of suit land who were given option to match the highest bid during auction of suit land---Suit filed by appellants/plaintiffs against respondent/Evacuee Trust Property Board was dismissed by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court decreed the same against respondent/Board---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court---Validity---Bid at an auction was only an offer and without confirmation or approval it did not create any right in the property in favour of successful bidder---By matching bid of the highest bidder, appellants/plaintiffs merely stepped into their shoes---Status of appellants/plaintiffs upon exercising the option was no different from the highest bidder---Decision was made to re-auction suit land, and there was nothing preventing appellants/plaintiffs from participating in auction---Rejecting of highest bid and order of re-auction had afforded equal opportunity to persons whose bid had been rejected---Principles of natural justice were not deemed to have been violated---Acceptance of highest bid was subject to approval or confirmation by competent authority and unless and until such approval was granted or confirmation was made there was no concluded contract vesting the highest bidder with an interest in the property subjected to auction---Since approval contemplated by terms and conditions of auction was never issued in favour of appellants/plaintiffs, they were not entitled to a declaration to the effect that respondent/ETPB was legally bound to receive remaining amount of the highest bid and vested the appellants/plaintiffs with ownership rights in suit land---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed. Javed Iqbal Abbasi and Company v. Province of Punjab 1996 SCMR 1433; Captain-PQ Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. A.W. Brothers 2004 SCMR 1956 and Afzal Maqsood Butt v. Banking Court No.2, Lahore PLD 2005 SC 470 rel. Sardar Aman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. M. Siddique Aman, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2025.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8 & 54---Suit for possession and injunction---Illegal construction over the plot of the plaintiff---Plaintiff being registered owner of the plot in dispute claimed possession thereof on the ground that the defendant purchased the plot in dispute from a person, who was not actual owner of the same ---Validity---Subject property was leased in the favour of the plaintiff, however, admittedly, no cancellation had been sought of the said lease deed by the defendant---Candid admissions of the defendant sufficiently established that the said defendant had no right title over the subject property---After filing the suit, notices were issued to the defendants, thus, after receipt of the summons, they were aware of the pendency of the suit and execution of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff and despite a lapse of over 05 years the defendants choose not to file any suit for declaration of his title or the cancellation of the said lease deed---Defendant had most candidly admitted that he was not in possession of any registered instrument, possession or allotment order either in his name or the name of his predecessor---High Court held that plaintiff was the owner of the subject property, thus, issues Nos.1 and 4 were answered in the affirmative and decided in favour of plaintiff---Chain of ownership emanating from the person, from whom the defendant purchased the subject plot, was defective, as the suit property was purchased from a person, who was not the owner of the same---Suit of the plaintiff was decreed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) only, in circumstances. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Arts. 79, 85(5) & 129(e)---Registered documents---Presumption---Under Arts. 79 & 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, presumption is attached to registered documents and they are presumed to be genuine unless proved otherwise. Mst. Nazeeran and others v. Ali Bux and others 2024 SCMR 1271 rel. Jawed Raza for Plaintiff. Gharib Shah for Defendant No. 1. Date of hearing: 27th February, 2025.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 17.05.2012, passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in C.R. No. 53 of 2002). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act (V of 1962), S. 2-A---Suit for declaration and injunction---Mutation of inheritance---Limited estate---Owner through will---Appellants / plaintiffs claimed share in suit property on the plea that respondents / defendant had become owners on the basis of will executed in favour of their predecessor-in-interest, in year 1934---Suit was decreed in favour of appellants / plaintiffs but Lower Appellate Court and High Court dismissed the suit---Validity---Creation of life interests for enjoyment of usufruct of properties upon death of a male holder were done away with and were subjected to Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962---By virtue of section 2-A of Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 limited estates had been done away with retrospective application of such provision---Predecessor-in-interest of respondents / defendants became the absolute owner of property in question---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Mullah's Principles of Mohammaden Law by Mr. Justice Hidayatullah; Dr. Tanzil-ur-Rehman, A Code of Muslim Personal Law, Volume II, page 196; Haider v. Murad PLD 2012 SC 501 and Mst. Farida Khatoon v. Dr. Masood Ahmed Butt 2009 SCMR 464 ref. Sohail Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. Sh. Zamir Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3). Date of hearing: 20th February, 2025.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VIII, R. 9---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42, 54 & 55---Suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction---Rejoinder, filing of---Purpose, nature and scope---Grant of leave for filing rejoinder---Discretion of court---Optional pleading---Efficiency in judicial process---Application for filing the rejoinder to the written statement was dismissed, however, the appellate court allowed the said application in a civil revision---Validity---Respondent/plaintiff could file a rejoinder only with the leave of the court, which had discretion in granting or refusing permission to file a rejoinder, and typically, it would allow it if necessary for a just determination of the lis---If the written statement of the defendant raised new defences or arguments, the plaintiff could be allowed to file rejoinder to clarify, explain or deny those defences--- Rejoinder is an optional pleading and can only be filed under the circumstances where it is needed to respond to new defences or issues raised by the petitioners/defendants that have not been adequately addressed as pleaded by the respondents/plaintiffs in their written application seeking permission of the Court to allow them to file rejoinder---Court's discretion envisages that unnecessary or frivolous replies are avoided, promoting efficiency in the judicial process---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Mian Humayun Ahmad Kakakhel for Petitioner.

Summary: Civil Procedure Act (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, Rr. 14, 15, 17 & O. XXIX, R. 1---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 54 & 55---Suit for declaration along with perpetual and mandatory injunction---Amendment in the pleadings---Scope---Improper signing/subscription and verification of written statement---Unauthorized concessional statement by the counsel---Cancellation of allotment of houses owing to non-deposit of remaining sale consideration---Suit instituted by the petitioners was decreed, but the appellate court partially allowed the appeal of the respondents while remanding the matter to the Trial Court for decision afresh after obtaining fresh written statement---Validity---Corporate body / Respondent (which was a public sector organization) was allowed to at least present their proper stance before the Trial Court through duly instituted proceedings and file written statements in accordance with O. VI, Rr. 14 and 15 , C.P.C.---Appeal being continuation of proceedings the appellate stage was a proper stage for allowing curing of defect in the proceedings---Nothing on factual side was removed from written statement, however, only a concessional statement that if the petitioners became willing and ready to deposit amount of taxes, then their suit might be decreed, was sought to be disowned through amendment, which was a concessional statement and not an assertion of fact---Concessional statement was also found to have been made on behalf of a public sector corporation without due authorization---Petitioners failed to make out a case for interference by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction---Appellate Court had already allowed the application filed by the respondents for amendment in the written statement, which order was maintained by the High Court---Civil Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. SDO/AM Hasht Nagri Sub-Division PESCO, Peshawar and others v. Khawazan Zad PLD 2023 SC 174 rel. Muhammad Akram and another v. Altaf Ahmad PLD 2003 SC 688 and Abaid Ullah Malik v. Additional District Judge, Mianwali and others PLD 2013 SC 239 distinguished. Abdul Samad Khan for Petitioners. Sabah ud Din Khattak for Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th January, 2025.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R. 17 & O. XXIII---Partition Act (IV of 1893), S.4---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art. 120---Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 172---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 8, 54---Suits for declaration, perpetual-cum-mandatory injunction, restoration of possession, and partition---Technical defects, removal of---Substantial justice---Scope---Both suits were decreed by the trial court through consolidated judgment and decrees, but the appeals preferred by the respondents were accepted by the appellate court on the grounds that the first suit was not maintainable due to being barred by time and that correction of revenue records fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts per S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967 and the second suit was dismissed as the petitioner did not seek partition of the entire property or implead the entire proprietary body, rendering it not maintainable---Validity---In the first suit, the petitioner sought not only declaration, permanent-cum-mandatory injunction, and possession, but also challenged the validity of the mutation as illegal and without bearing on their rights, thus falling outside the purview of S. 172 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967---Second suit could not be dismissed for partial partition or non-impleadment of the entire proprietary body, as the entire property and necessary parties could be included in the larger interest of justice rather than dismissing it on technical grounds---If the suit was defective, the law provided a mechanism for removal thereof under O. VI, R. 17 and O. XXIII, C.P.C---No suit should be dismissed for misjoinder or non-joinder of parties---Courts are mandated to adjudicate the matter in dispute based on the facts and rights of the parties involved---High Court, without addressing the merits of the case, set aside the appellate court's findings and remitted the matter to the Trial Court with directions to allow the petitioner to remedy the technical defects---Civil revision was disposed of accordingly. Mst. Zohran Bibi and others v. Ghulam Qadir and others 2022 MLD 250; Chaudhary Muhammad Munir and others v. Election Tribunal Mandi Bahauddin and others 2009 SCMR 1368 and Mazullah Khan v. Mst. Taraja Begum and others 2020 YLR 2206 rel. Muhammad Alam Khan and Atta Ullah Khan (Tangi) for Petitioner. Aqil Muhammad Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 2024.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 08.12.2014 passed by Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench in C.R. No. 38-B of 2008). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.8, 42 & 54---Suit for possession, declaration and injunction---Adverse possession---Electricity bills---Proof of possession---Suit filed by predecessor-in-interest of appellants was decreed in his favour but Lower Appellate Court allowed appeal and suit was dismissed---Judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court were maintained by High Court---Validity---Possession of suit property was with predecessor-in-interest of respondents/defendants who had electricity consumption meter in their name but the same did not bear any fruit for them and had no effect on merits of the case---Such entries could never be termed as equivalent to ownership---Predecessor-in-interest of appellants was owner of suit house and after his death, the appellants stepped into his shoes---Status of predecessor-in-interest of respondents was that of a tenant and thereafter, respondents had stepped into his shoes---Sale mutations were of no help to predecessor-in-interest of respondents and their possession of suit house was not less than that of a trespasser---Supreme Court set aside judgments and decrees passed by Lower Appellate Court and High Court as Trial Court had rightly granted decree in favour of appellants---Appeal was allowed. Sabit Ullah Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Muhammad Shoaib Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th October, 2024.

Summary: (a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--- ----Ss. 65 & 90---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 76, 77, 100 & 114---Specific Relief Act (I of 1872), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration with perpetual injunction---Oral gift and execution of deed---Essential ingredient of gift---Proof---Absence of details of oral gift---Effect---Presumption attached to thirty years old documents---Scope---Non-production of original deed and witnesses thereof---Suit instituted by the respondents was decreed and the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed---Validity---Thirty years old document when relied upon by the petitioners/defendants and refuted by the respondents/plaintiffs then petitioners were required to prove not only execution of the deed but the basic essential ingredients of gift along with the details of alienation of the property---Neither any documentary nor any oral evidence was available that when and at which particular place, the declaration of the gift i.e., offer and acceptance, was taken place or erstwhile predecessor had divested himself from the possession of the property, had been proved by the petitioners---Mere age of the document as of thirty years old was not sufficient to hold that it was executed and was deemed to be proved---Petitioners had alleged the alienation in two series and they were required to prove it but not even an iota of evidence was available to substantiate their contention except the production of documents which too had not been produced in original before the court---Law had provided a remedy for proving a document through secondary evidence which was an exception to general rule and only meant for the purpose to cater a genuine need and hardship, which could not be allowed in routine or without complying with the requirements mentioned under S. 65 of the Evidence Act of 1872 (Act) or Arts. 76 and 77 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 (Order)---Mere production of deed before the court especially when the validity thereof was questioned by the respondents, the benefit of S. 90 of the Act or that of Art.100 of the Order could not be extended in favor of the petitioners---Civil Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Ch. Muhammad Shafi v. Shamim Khanum 2007 SCMR 838; Muhammad Naseem Fatima's case PLD 2005 SC 455; Muhammad Asghar and others v. Hakam Bibi through L.Rs. and others 2015 CLC 719 (Lahore) and Mst. Kalsoom Bibi and another v. Muhammad Arif and others 2005 SCMR 135 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 11, Explanation IV---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration with perpetual injunction---Maintainability---Constructive res judicata, principle of---Scope---Plea taken by the petitioners that in view of dismissal of an earlier suit as withdraw, in which the respondents/plaintiffs were parties, the latter suit was not maintainable---Validity---Although petitioners were the defendants in the earlier suit but neither the suit was in respect of the legacy claimed in the second suit, nor they had ever appeared before the court---Neither rights of the petitioners were in question nor they were resisting the earlier suit, thus, neither the controversy of the respondents in their suit was the subject matter of the earlier suit, nor it was resolved in any manner, thus, neither the estoppel could be alleged against the respondents nor res judicata could be pressed into service but since the petitioners being defendants in earlier suit had taken a clear stance but failed in proving the same, thus, the matter was properly adjudicated upon by the court of competent jurisdiction against them and their cross objections in view of the dismissal of the suit as withdrawn had become infructuous, which, they could not allege in the latter suit of the respondents as there was no decree and that too in respect of the document/deed alleged by the petitioners---Civil Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R. 1---Pleadings---Scope---Mere pleadings unless corroborated by qualitative evidence could not be based for the decision of the lis nor the evidence without pleadings could provide any benefit---Mere pleadings of a party cannot be treated as substitute for proof---No litigant can be allowed to build and prove his case beyond the scope of his pleadings. Muhammad Iqbal v. Mehboob Alam 2015 SCMR 21; Inayat Ali Shah v. Anwar Hussain 1995 MLD 1714; Pir Wali Khan v. Niaz Badshah 2013 MLD 1106; Mir Laiq Khan v. Sarfraz Jehan 2013 MLD 1449; Mst. Ghazala Yasmeen v. Sarfraz Khan Durrani 2013 CLC 1406; Messrs Choudhary Brothers Ltd., Sialkot v. Jaranwala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaranwala 1968 SCMR 804 and Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others PLD 2020 SC 338 rel. (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 114---Principle of estoppel---Scope---Principle of estoppel is used as a shield and not as a sword. Abdul Wali Khan for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents (in motion). Date of hearing: 22nd October, 2024.