Summary: (a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 211 & 215---Attorney and principal---Fiduciary obligation---Transfer of principal’s property by attorney in favour of his own sons---Validity---Attorney, acting under registered general power of attorney, transferred principal’s inherited property in favour of his own sons through registered sale deed and mutation---Principal subsequently revoked power of attorney and sought cancellation of sale deed and mutation on ground of misuse of authority, fraud and absence of consent---Held, that attorney stands in fiduciary relationship with principal and cannot validly transfer principal’s property in favour of himself or his close relatives without prior permission, approval and consent of principal after full disclosure of material circumstances---Transfer in favour of sons of attorney, without proof of express consent of principal, was legally unsustainable. Cited Cases: • Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan PLD 1985 SC 341 • Maqsood Ahmad v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 • Jamil Akhtar v. Las Baba PLD 2003 SC 494 • Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Malik PLD 2008 SC 389 • Allah Bakhsh v. Muhammad Riaz PLD 2025 SC 63 (b) Power of attorney--- ----General power of attorney---Authority to alienate immovable property---Scope---General power of attorney does not, merely by reason of being described as “general”, automatically include authority to sell or alienate property of principal---Such authority must be contained in a clear and specific clause, and even then Court must examine whether principal’s knowledge, intention and consent are clearly established---Held, that implied authority to alienate property is not readily deducible from vague or general words, particularly where principal alleges fraud or misrepresentation. Cited Case: • Fida Muhammad v. Pir Muhammad Khan PLD 1985 SC 341 (c) Power of attorney--- ----Attorney purchasing or transferring property for his own benefit or for benefit of close relatives---Special permission of principal---Requirement---Attorney transferred suit property in favour of his own sons---Held, that where attorney intends to deal with principal’s property for his own benefit or in favour of close fiduciary relations, he must obtain special permission/prior approval of principal---Failure to obtain such consent entitles principal to repudiate transaction---Burden lies heavily upon attorney and beneficiaries to establish valid consent and lawful authority. Cited Cases: • Maqsood Ahmad v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 • Jamil Akhtar v. Las Baba PLD 2003 SC 494 • Muhammad Ashraf v. Muhammad Malik PLD 2008 SC 389 • Allah Bakhsh v. Muhammad Riaz PLD 2025 SC 63 (d) Sale by attorney--- ----Transfer in favour of attorney’s sons---Absence of express written consent---Effect---No cogent or reliable evidence was produced to prove that principal had granted express consent or prior approval for transfer of suit property in favour of attorney’s sons---Held, that in absence of such consent, transaction was hit by settled principles governing fiduciary obligations of attorney and could not be sustained. (e) Sale transaction--- ----Payment through cheque---Proof of sale consideration---Evidentiary value---Attorney/brother relied upon alleged cheque payment in favour of principal/sister to support sale transaction---Held, that payment through cheque, by itself, was not conclusive proof of valid sale transaction, particularly where no agreement to sell or independent corroborative evidence existed to show lawful bargain---Mere production of payment, without proof of underlying transaction and principal’s informed consent, did not satisfy legal standard required to validate alienation of immovable property. (f) Fraud and misuse of authority--- ----Power of attorney executed due to close familial relationship---Subsequent sale in favour of attorney’s sons---Material alteration in written statement regarding consideration---Effect---Principal had executed power of attorney in favour of appellant due to close familial relations for management of suit property---Attorney later transferred property in favour of his sons---Appellants initially pleaded purchase for valuable consideration, but later materially altered alleged sale consideration in amended written statement without explanation---Held, that surrounding circumstances, fiduciary relationship, absence of proven consent and inconsistency regarding consideration supported conclusion that authority had been misused and transaction was not legally sustainable. (g) Civil suit--- ----Cancellation of sale deed and mutation---Attorney’s unauthorized transfer---Trial Court decree restored by High Court---Supreme Court refusal to interfere---Trial Court decreed suit for cancellation; appellate Court reversed; High Court restored Trial Court decree---Supreme Court held that core question was whether attorney could validly transfer principal’s property to his own sons without express written consent and whether such consent had been proved---No reliable evidence of prior approval or express consent having been produced, High Court rightly restored decree of Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed. Disposition: Appeal was dismissed. Supreme Court upheld High Court judgment dated 06.10.2025 whereby decree of Trial Court cancelling the impugned sale deed and mutation was restored. No order as to costs.

Summary: Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908)--- ----S. 36---Execution of orders---Compromise order---Undertaking given before Court---Enforceability---Scope--- Respondents had instituted suit for declaration against inheritance mutation, while during pendency of suit petitioners sought appointment of receiver for collection of their share of produce from disputed land---Matter was settled before High Court on undertaking that if respondents failed in suit, they would compensate petitioners according to their share recorded in mutation---Suit was ultimately dismissed up to High Court and execution proceedings were initiated by petitioners for recovery of amount representing their share of produce---Meanwhile, subsequent proceedings before Supreme Court also ended in compromise, whereby mutation was to stand modified to extent of share of predecessor of petitioners and such arrangement was agreed to be final settlement regarding disputed mutation---Executing Court repeatedly held execution petition maintainable and dismissed objections, but High Court in revision set aside orders of Executing Court and dismissed execution petition---Validity---Supreme Court held that order passed on basis of compromise, even where no formal decree was drawn, remained binding upon parties and was fully enforceable---By virtue of S. 36, C.P.C., provisions relating to execution of decrees apply equally, so far as may be, to execution of orders---Undertaking recorded by Court carries sanctity and enforceability, and party giving such undertaking cannot subsequently resile from it---Order disposing of proceedings in terms of compromise was not mere private arrangement but judicial order possessing full legal force---Executing Court was competent to enforce obligations arising out of undertaking and compromise and respondents could not, through objections, reopen matters that had already attained finality or flowed directly from compromise---High Court had erred in revisional jurisdiction in interfering with well-reasoned orders of Executing Court and in rendering undertaking and compromise ineffective---Petitions were converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment of High Court was set aside; Executing Court was directed to proceed with execution petition and conclude proceedings expeditiously in accordance with law. Mehar Zulfiqar Ali Babu and others v. Government of Punjab (1997 SCMR 117); Ranjit Singh Hazari v. Juman Meah (PLD 1961 Dacca 842); Kilachand Devchand & Co. v. Ajodhuaprasad Sukhamnand (AIR 1934 Bombay 452); Hassan Masud Malik v. Dr. Muhammad Iqbal (1995 SCMR 766); Bakhtawar v. Amin (1980 SCMR 89) rel. (a) Compromise recorded by Court---Binding effect--- An order passed on the basis of compromise between parties does not lose its binding force merely because no formal decree has been drawn up---Once proceedings are disposed of in terms of compromise, the order remains operative and binding inter se the parties and cannot be permitted to be defeated on technical grounds. (b) Section 36, C.P.C.---Execution of orders as distinguished from decrees--- Section 36, C.P.C. expressly provides that provisions relating to execution of decrees shall, so far as may be applicable, apply equally to execution of orders---Thus, judicial orders, including compromise orders, are capable of enforcement through execution proceedings. (c) Undertaking given before Court---Sanctity and enforceability--- A party who voluntarily gives undertaking before Court to perform a particular obligation is bound by the same and cannot later wriggle out of it---Such undertaking, once recorded by Court, acquires sanctity and is enforceable through judicial process. (d) Executing Court---Jurisdiction and limitation--- Where obligations arise directly from compromise and undertaking recorded by superior Courts, Executing Court is competent to enforce the same---Objections seeking to reopen issues already settled or having attained finality are legally impermissible, for Executing Court cannot go behind the order sought to be executed. (e) Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Interference with execution orders---Propriety--- High Court fell into error in upsetting orders of Executing Court and appellate court which had correctly held execution petition maintainable---Such interference had effect of rendering judicial undertaking and compromise insignificant, contrary to settled principles governing enforceability of orders of Court. Petitions converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment set aside; Executing Court directed to proceed with execution petition expeditiously.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXIII, R.1---Withdrawal of suit---Withdrawal with permission to file fresh suit---Effect on earlier judgment and decree---Plaintiff’s right to abandon suit---Court’s discretion to grant permission for fresh suit---Held, that under O.XXIII, R.1, CPC, a plaintiff may withdraw his suit or abandon part of his claim, but if such withdrawal is without permission under sub-rule (2), he is precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the same subject-matter---Where permission is granted under sub-rule (2), the withdrawal protects the plaintiff from the restrictive consequences of O.II, R.2 and S.11, CPC---Grant of such permission is not a matter of right but a judicial discretion to be exercised only where the suit must fail by reason of a formal defect or where other sufficient grounds exist for allowing a fresh suit---When a suit is withdrawn with permission to institute a fresh suit, parties are placed in the same legal position as if the original suit had never been filed. Cited Cases: • Balida Kamayya and others v. Paragada Papayya and another AIR 1918 Mad. 1287 • Behari Lal Pal v. Srimati Baran Mai Dasi 1894 ILR 17 All 53 • Becharam Chowdhuri and others v. Purna Chandra Chatterji and others AIR 1925 Cal. 845 • Baisnab Das Mohanta v. Nani Gopal Das and others PLD 1963 Dacca 504 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXIII, R.1---Withdrawal of suit at appellate stage---Permission to file fresh suit---Effect on decrees already passed---Judicial caution---Held, that an application under O.XXIII, R.1(2), CPC, especially when made at appellate or second appellate stage, requires strict judicial scrutiny---If permission is granted at such stage, it may enable an unsuccessful plaintiff to avoid adverse decrees already rendered against him and may deprive the contesting defendant of rights accrued through adjudication by courts below---Court must consider all relevant factors, including the effect of allowing a party to re-agitate the same dispute and the wastage of public judicial time---Backlog of cases and delay in disposal of litigation further require appellate courts to exercise such discretion with care and restraint. Cited Case: • Mrs. Afroz Shah and others v. Sabir Qureshi and others PLD 2010 SC 913 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXIII, R.1---Withdrawal order with permission to file fresh suit---Finality of unchallenged order---Collateral attack---Subsequent proceedings---Held, that once a competent Court grants permission to withdraw a civil suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit, such order remains binding unless set aside in appeal, revision or other lawful direct proceedings---Court seized of a subsequent suit cannot examine whether the earlier permission was rightly or wrongly granted---Such order cannot be challenged collaterally in proceedings not intended to reverse, modify or annul it---Where the appellants did not challenge the withdrawal order through proper procedure, they could not later question its validity in subsequent proceedings. Cited Cases: • Garland v. Consumers’ Gas Co. 2004 1 SCR 629 • Raj Kumar Mahto v. Ram Khelawan Singh AIR 1922 Pat. 44 • Haridey Nath Roy v. Ramchandra AIR 1921 Cal. 34 • R v. Wilson 1983 2 SCR 594 • Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. 2001 2 SCR 460 (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XXIII, R.1---Declaratory suit based on earlier decree---Earlier suit withdrawn with permission to file fresh suit---Effect of withdrawal on earlier decree---Held, that where the first suit had been withdrawn with permission to institute a fresh suit, the judgment and decree previously passed in that first suit ceased to have operative legal value for founding a subsequent claim---Such judgment and decree became ineffective and could not be used as the basis for declaration of title---Appellants’ claim in the second suit was based solely on the earlier judgment and decree dated 26.02.1998, but after withdrawal of the first suit, that decree no longer furnished any foundation for claiming ownership---Courts below were justified in dismissing the declaratory suit. (e) Precedent---- ----Leave-refusing order---Applicability of precedent---Decision to be read in context of its own facts---Held, that every judicial opinion must be understood in relation to the facts established or assumed in that case---Broad observations in a judgment are not to be treated as complete expositions of law divorced from their context---A case is authority only for what it actually decides---Precedent of Haji Muhammad Boota was distinguishable because in that case the Supreme Court had itself permitted withdrawal and later revisited the withdrawal order due to indications of misrepresentation and possible fraudulent acquisition of escheated land---In the present case, withdrawal was allowed by the First Appellate Court and the appellants never challenged such order before any forum at the proper time---Reliance on Haji Muhammad Boota was therefore misplaced. Cited Cases: • Haji Muhammad Boota and others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 2003 SC 979 • Quinn v. Leathern 1901 AC 495 • Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem 1994 SCMR 2213 • Muhammad Shakeel and others v. Additional District Judge and others PLD 2025 SC 572 (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. VI, R.17---Amendment of plaint---Declaratory suit---Change in character of claim---Request for remand to amend plaint and prove independent title---Held, that although the proposed amended suit would still remain one for declaration, the character of the appellants’ claim would materially change because the original plaint was founded solely on the earlier judgment and decree---Amendment which changes the character of the original claim is not permissible under O.VI, R.17, CPC---Appellants had not produced any foundational material or supplementary documents showing that they could establish title independently of the earlier decree---Remanding the matter merely on counsel’s assertion would serve no practical purpose and would create unnecessary litigation. Cited Cases: • Alokeshi Banik v. Aftabuddin PLD 1963 Dacca 87 • Syed Muhammad Ali and others v. Syed Dabir Ali and others 2016 SCMR 2164 (g) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Declaratory suit---Declaration of title---Burden to establish independent legal foundation---Earlier ineffective decree relied upon as sole basis of title---Held, that a plaintiff seeking declaration of ownership must establish a valid legal foundation for such title---Where the only foundation pleaded was an earlier judgment and decree which had become ineffective due to withdrawal of the suit with permission to file fresh proceedings, no declaration of title could be granted---In absence of any other evidence or documentation proving ownership of the disputed land, appellants were rightly non-suited. Disposition: Appeal was dismissed with costs throughout; judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, maintaining dismissal of appellants’ declaratory suit, was upheld.

Summary: (a) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---- ----S.15---Ejectment petition---Commercial premises---Unregistered lease deed for thirty-three years---Long-term tenancy---Effect---Held, that an unregistered lease deed purporting to create rights in immovable property for a term exceeding one year could not be relied upon for establishing a long-term tenancy---Where the alleged lease deed was unregistered, the tenancy was rightly treated as month-to-month tenancy under the law---Upon valid termination of such tenancy, ejectment petitions were maintainable and could lawfully be accepted. (b) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal---New factual plea before Supreme Court---Alleged partition of property and identity of landlord---Held, that a party cannot be permitted to raise, for the first time at the stage of leave to appeal, a factual controversy requiring determination through evidence---Jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art.185(3) is not intended to reopen factual disputes which were neither pleaded nor adjudicated upon by the courts below---Where no foundational plea challenging the locus standi of the ejectment petitioner on the basis of alleged partition or different landlord was raised before the Rent Controller, no issue was framed and no evidence was led, such plea could not be entertained for the first time before the Supreme Court. Cited Cases: • Pirzada Noor-Ul-Basar v. Mst. Pakistan Bibi and others 2023 SCMR 1072 • WAPDA through Chairman and others v. Alam Sher and others 2023 SCMR 981 • Najaf Iqbal v. Shahzad Rafique 2020 SCMR 1621 • Muhammad Rashid Bhatti v. Director General FIA Headquarters, Islamabad and others 2018 SCMR 1995 • Muhammad Saleem v. Muhammad Azan and another 2011 SCMR 474 • Rauf Ahmad v. Mst. Walayat Begum PLD 1995 SC 639 (c) Civil Procedure---- ----Remand---Scope and object---Not to be ordered routinely---Held, that remand is a corrective jurisdiction to be exercised carefully where a material issue has remained undecided or where a party has been denied fair opportunity to present its case---Remand cannot be used as a device to prolong litigation or to provide a litigant a second opportunity to fill lacunae in his case---Where Rent Controller framed relevant issues, recorded oral and documentary evidence and returned findings after appraisal of record, and Appellate Court and High Court also examined the matter, remand was not warranted in absence of jurisdictional defect, misreading or non-reading of material evidence. Cited Cases: • Rozi Khan and others v. Nasir and others 1997 SCMR 1849 • Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and another v. Gulbat Khan 1996 SCMR 230 (d) Civil Procedure---- ----Pleadings---Parties bound by pleadings---Evidence beyond pleadings---Held, that parties are bound by their pleadings and no amount of evidence can be looked into in support of a plea not specifically raised---A litigant cannot improve or reconstruct his case at a later stage by introducing facts that were neither pleaded, nor made subject of issue, nor tested through evidence before the competent forum---Pleas regarding acquisition of ownership through sale deeds during pendency of proceedings and extension of demised premises through adjoining portions could not be entertained where such pleas were not part of the original defence before the Rent Controller. Cited Cases: • Hafiz Qari Fateh through L.Rs. v. Ms. Urooj Fatima and others 2024 SCMR 1709 • Muhammad Ghaffar through LRs and others v. Arif Muhammad 2023 SCMR 344 • Zulfiqar and others v. Shahdat Khan PLD 2007 SC 582 • Government of West Pakistan through Collector, Bahawalpur v. Hail Muhammad PLD 1976 SC 469 • Messrs Choudhary Brothers Ltd., Sialkot v. The Jaranwala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Jaranwala 1968 SCMR 804 • Binyameen and others v. Chaudhry Hakim and another 1996 SCMR 336 • Major (Retd.) Barkat Ali and others v. Qaim Din and others 2006 SCMR 562 (e) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984)---- ----Art.115---Estoppel of tenant---Tenant disputing landlord’s title---Subsequent claim of ownership---Held, that a tenant who entered into possession under a tenancy cannot, during subsistence of tenancy, dispute the landlord’s title as it existed at the inception of tenancy---Doctrine of estoppel under Art.115 bars such denial---If, after expiry of tenancy, tenant sets up an independent title in himself, lawful course is to vacate the premises and pursue appropriate remedies before a competent civil forum---Rent proceedings cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of complex title disputes. Cited Cases: • Nazir Ahmad v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and others 1989 SCMR 913 • Mst. Seema Begum v. Muhammad Ishaq and others PLD 2009 SC 45 • Barkat Masih v. Manzoor Ahmad through L.Rs. 2006 SCMR 1068 • Ghulam Mustafa and others v. Mst. Muhammadi Begum and others 1991 SCMR 432 • Muhammad Nazir v. Saeed Subhani 2002 SCMR 1540 • Waheed Ullah v. Mst. Rehana Nasim and others 2004 SCMR 1568 (f) Transfer of Property / Rent Law---- ----Doctrine of pendente lite---Sale deeds executed during pendency of ejectment proceedings---Effect on rent proceedings---Held, that reliance upon sale deeds executed in 2022 and 2023 could not be used to resist ejectment proceedings instituted in 2018---Rights, if any, acquired pendente lite cannot be employed as a ploy to defeat proceedings lawfully initiated years earlier, particularly where such rights were neither pleaded at inception nor integrated into the original defence before the Rent Controller. (g) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---- ----S.15---Rent Controller---Jurisdiction---Title dispute---Summary nature of rent proceedings---Held, that rent jurisdiction under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 is summary and specialized in character and is confined to determining the landlord-tenant relationship and statutory grounds of ejectment---Rent Controller cannot adjudicate complex questions of proprietary title---Questions of ownership fall within the exclusive domain of the civil court---Where tenants had already disputed respondents’ title through separate civil proceedings pending before a competent civil court, remand to the Rent Controller for inquiry into title would be misconceived and would merely delay finality of rent proceedings. (h) Punjab Rented Premises Act (VII of 2009)---- ----S.15---Co-ownership dispute---Change in ownership of demised premises---Distinguishable precedents---Held, that precedents relating to change in ownership of the very demised premises through alienation by co-owners were distinguishable where no such alteration in ownership of the demised premises had been established---Alleged purchases relied upon by tenants related to adjoining portions and were never made part of the original defence before the Rent Controller---Precedents apply only where factual foundation is analogous; where facts materially differ, reliance upon such authorities is of no assistance. Cited Cases: • Mst. Sanobar Sultan and others v. Obaidullah Khan and others PLD 2009 SC 71 • Abdul Zahir v. Jaffar Khan 2010 SCMR 189 (i) Constitution of Pakistan---- ----Art.185(3)---Concurrent findings of Rent Controller, Appellate Court and High Court---Interference by Supreme Court---Held, that concurrent findings that tenancy stood established, unregistered lease deed could not create long-term tenancy, plea of extended ownership/acquisition of title was neither pleaded nor proved, and ejectment petitions were maintainable, were based on proper appreciation of record and settled principles of law---No perversity, misreading, non-reading of material evidence or jurisdictional defect was shown---Supreme Court refused interference. Disposition: All connected C.P.L.As. Nos.209, 210, 211, 212, 324 and 325 of 2026 were dismissed; leave to appeal was refused; no order as to costs.

Summary: (a) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Arts. 17 & 79---Agreement to sell---Proof through attesting witnesses---Mandatory requirement---Suit for specific performance was founded upon alleged agreement to sell dated 22.09.2000 relating to immovable property---Defendants specifically denied execution of said agreement---Held, that where a document is required by law to be attested, its execution must be proved through attesting witnesses in accordance with Arts.17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, unless absence of such witnesses is satisfactorily explained---Production of attesting witnesses is mandatory and failure to comply renders document legally unproved. Cited Cases: • Rafaqat Ali and others v. Mst. Jamshed Bibi and others 2007 SCMR 1076 • Ainuddin and others v. Abdullah and another 2019 SCMR 880 (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Arts. 17 & 79---Agreement to sell---Non-production of marginal witnesses---Effect---Plaintiff relied upon agreement to sell but failed to produce marginal witnesses of the document---No explanation was furnished for their non-production despite serious denial of execution by defendants---Held, that failure to produce most natural witnesses to the transaction struck at the root of plaintiff’s case---Agreement to sell could not be treated as proved in accordance with law. Cited Case: • Mst. Hajyani Bar Bibi through L.R. v. Mrs. Rehana Afzal Ali Khan and others PLD 2014 SC 794 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Art. 17(2)(a)---Power of attorney and agreement concerning immovable property---Instrument creating financial obligations---Attestation---Requirement---Agreement to sell and powers of attorney relied upon by plaintiff related to immovable property and created financial obligations---Held, that such documents fall within ambit of Art.17(2)(a) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and must be attested and proved in accordance with Arts.17 and 79 thereof---A document not proved through prescribed legal mode cannot form basis of decree for specific performance. Cited Cases: • Maqsood Ahmad and others v. Salman Ali PLD 2003 SC 31 • Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others PLD 2011 SC 241 (d) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984--- ----Art. 129(g)---Withholding of best evidence---Adverse presumption---Agreement to sell denied by defendants---Plaintiff failed to produce marginal witnesses and gave no explanation for such omission---Held, that adverse presumption under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 would arise against plaintiff that had marginal witnesses been produced, they would not have supported his stance---Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proof. (e) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Specific performance---Equitable and discretionary relief---Proof of contract---Requirement---Relief of specific performance is not granted as a matter of right merely because it is lawful to do so---Court must examine facts, conduct of parties, delay, surrounding circumstances and whether contract has been proved in accordance with law---Held, that where alleged agreement to sell itself remained legally unproved, plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance. Cited Case: • Liaqat Ali Khan and others v. Falak Sher and others PLD 2014 SC 506 (f) Specific performance--- ----Agreement to sell not proved---Third-party rights---Effect---Plaintiff alleged prior agreement to sell and full payment of consideration, whereas defendants asserted lawful subsequent transfer through chain of title and bona fide purchase without notice---Record reflected that third-party rights had already been created through transfer duly recognized by Capital Development Authority---Held, that in presence of legally unproved agreement and intervening third-party rights, equitable relief of specific performance could not be granted. (g) Civil suit--- ----Specific performance, possession and permanent injunction---Foundation of claim legally unproved---Effect---Entire claim of plaintiff rested upon agreement to sell dated 22.09.2000---Marginal witnesses were not produced, execution was denied, and mandatory evidentiary requirements were not satisfied---Held, that Courts below failed to properly appreciate mandatory requirements of Arts.17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and erroneously decreed suit despite fundamental defects in plaintiff’s evidence. (h) Civil proceedings--- ----Concurrent findings below---Interference by Supreme Court---Mandatory evidentiary requirements ignored---Trial Court decreed suit, Appellate Court dismissed appeal, and High Court dismissed civil revision---Supreme Court held that plaintiff failed to prove alleged agreement to sell in accordance with mandatory provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---Where Courts below proceed on a document not legally proved, interference by Supreme Court is warranted. Disposition: Petitions were converted into appeal and allowed. Judgments of Trial Court, Appellate Court and Islamabad High Court were set aside. Suit instituted by plaintiff/respondent No.1 for specific performance, possession and permanent injunction stood dismissed. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

Summary: (a) Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964)----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199----Dowry and bridal gifts---Recovery of alternate value of dowry articles---Scope of constitutional jurisdiction---Petitioner/wife challenged concurrent family court judgments whereby trial court had granted 30% alternate value of dowry articles but appellate court had set aside even that relief---Held, dowry articles and personal belongings of a wife remain her exclusive property and, where not returned in specie, she may claim their alternate value, subject to proof of existence, entrustment and retention---Appellate Court failed to appreciate material admissions and surrounding circumstances, including respondent/husband’s own stance that household articles were available in the house and his admission that no traditional dowry was given at the time of marriage, coupled with his assertion that he purchased various household luxuries during matrimony---Where original financial details were withheld by husband and wife’s bank record showed regular withdrawal of her salary for household consumption, presumption operated in favour of wife’s contribution---Appellate Court had, therefore, misdirected itself in discarding claim in toto merely on ground that wife had not produced her parents or further documentary proof. (b) Dowry and Bridal Gifts (Restriction) Act (LXXVIII of 1976)----Ss. 2 & 5---Dowry---Meaning and legal status---Property given to bride before or after marriage by her parents in connection with marriage constitutes dowry, excluding inherited property---Wife has absolute right in her dowry and bridal gifts---Any property rights available to a woman cannot be restricted, controlled or limited, and every gift becomes her exclusive property---There is no legal bar to a wife purchasing household articles herself after marriage and claiming them as dowry articles within the meaning of law, if such articles were acquired in connection with marriage and matrimonial home. Reliance placed on Ghulam Rasool v. Family Court 1991 CLC 1696 and Syeda Mehwish v. Additional District Judge, Islamabad (West) 2018 CLC 1337. (c) Family proceedings---Proof of dowry articles---Nature of evidence required---Strict rules of evidence---Held, wife’s solitary statement may be sufficient to prove existence of dowry items in a recovery suit, and oral testimony can substantiate a dowry claim because Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 does not apply in its strict sense to family proceedings---There is no rigid formula requiring receipts, shopkeepers’ details or production of parents in every case---Determination depends upon facts of each case and overall probabilities emerging from evidence. Reliance placed on Aziz-Ur-Rehman v. Mst. Bibi Jameela 2020 CLC 380 and Shafique Sultan v. Mst. Asma Firdous 2017 SCMR 393. (d) Dowry articles---Valuation of used household goods---Principles---Held, valuation of dowry articles is to be made case to case with reference to nature, quality, user period and prevailing market conditions---Judge, Family Court cannot adopt a bare rule of thumb without objective criteria---For assessing alternate value of used household articles, relevant factors include: present and past market value; years of use; average life of article; sentimental value attached to item; need to account for replacement at current price where article remains with husband; online market sources and auction platforms for valuation; reasonable depreciation; inflation and consumer price data; and average market prices supplied by parties---Used item may generally be considered at half price, but not below that level, unless marital breakdown occurred within first one or two years, in which case value may be considered around 80% in view of inflation and taxation---Family Court may use modern scientific tools, data, websites and market applications without requiring expert evidence in every case. Reliance placed on Mst. Ayesha Shaheen v. Khalid Mehmood 2013 SCMR 1049; Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Mazhar 2014 CLC 895; Mst. Samreen Bibi v. Judge Family Court PLD 2015 Lahore 504; and Haji Muhammad Nawaz v. Samina Kanwal 2017 SCMR 321. (e) Matrimonial property---Assets acquired during subsistence of marriage---Vehicle purchased in husband’s name---Claim of wife on basis of contribution---Islamic jurisprudence, comparative jurisprudence and equitable principles---Petitioner/wife claimed that vehicle bearing Registration No. AAK-478, Suzuki Cultus, though standing in husband’s name, was acquired with her financial contribution including initial seed money---Held, such asset required consideration not merely as dowry but as matrimonial property---Though under existing Pakistani law a wife does not automatically acquire ownership in husband’s assets merely by marriage, proprietary interest may still be established through proof of contribution, partnership, trust, gift or joint acquisition---Non-financial contributions such as homemaking, childcare and domestic management possess economic significance and can justify recognition of beneficial interest in assets accumulated during marriage---Marriage operates as a cooperative partnership and there should be no bias in favour of sole titled money-earner against homemaker or child-carer. (f) Islamic law---Marriage and property rights---Separate ownership of spouses---Legislative competence to protect women’s matrimonial rights---Held, under classical Islamic jurisprudence husband and wife remain distinct legal persons with separate property rights; wife retains control over her own property and does not, by marriage alone, become owner of husband’s property, nor does husband acquire wife’s property automatically---However, Islamic law does not prohibit legislation for protection of women in respect of matrimonial property where justice and prevention of hardship so require---Concepts of mut‘at al-talaq, maslahah, ijtihad and compensation for women’s contribution provide room for development of protective legal norms---Silence of classical law on community or matrimonial property does not bar modern legislation safeguarding women from post-divorce destitution and exploitation. (g) Comparative jurisprudence---Recognition of marital partnership and non-financial contribution---Held, in a number of jurisdictions including Malaysia, Indonesia, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Libya, Brunei, United Kingdom, United States and Canada, courts and legislation recognize direct and indirect contributions of spouses in distribution of matrimonial assets---Homemaking and childcare are treated as contributions of equal worth to financial input in appropriate cases---Principles of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, equitable distribution and community property regimes demonstrate a broader modern trend that marriage is an economic partnership and domestic contribution materially aids acquisition and preservation of wealth---Such comparative experience may legitimately guide development of family law principles in Pakistan. (h) Women’s rights---Constitutional protection---International obligations---CEDAW---Held, Pakistan, having ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), is under an obligation to reconsider its legal framework so as to eliminate discrimination against women in matters concerning ownership, acquisition, management and disposition of property, including consequences of dissolution of marriage---Equal protection of women, particularly homemakers and working wives, requires meaningful legal and policy safeguards in respect of assets acquired during marriage. (i) Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Writ jurisdiction---Limits on enhancement of relief---Held, High Court in constitutional jurisdiction does not ordinarily reappraise evidence to enhance relief granted by trial court---Although appellate court had erred in law and fact by denying wife’s rights altogether, High Court could not itself enhance trial court’s award from 30% to a higher quantified share on writ side---Proper course was to set aside both judgments and remand matter to Family Court for fresh decision after hearing parties and applying correct legal principles. (j) Recommendations/observations---Legislative reform---Nikahnama---Protection of wife’s property rights---High Court observed that every wife who cohabits with husband during subsistence of marriage should be deemed to have contributed, through domestic labour, childcare and household management, to establishment and maintenance of matrimonial home and family welfare---Recommended that Government initiate comprehensive legislation for equitable distribution of assets acquired during marriage, with enhanced protection for working wives and recognition of homemaker’s contribution---Further observed that Nikahnama may be amended, or appropriate condition inserted in existing form, to record agreement regarding equal division of property acquired after marriage, so as to better protect matrimonial property rights of women. Petition was allowed, judgments and decrees of Family Court and Appellate Court were set aside, and matter was remanded to Family Court for fresh decision after hearing parties, to be decided within two months.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance of agreement to sell---Discretionary and equitable relief---Continuous readiness and willingness---Petitions arose out of three interconnected civil proceedings concerning same immovable property and two competing agreements to sell dated 16.04.2014 and 03.06.2016---Supreme Court held that relief of specific performance, though statutorily recognized, was not granted as a matter of right but rested in equity and judicial discretion---Person seeking such relief was required to plead and prove that he had been continuously ready and willing to perform his part of the contract---Readiness and willingness was not a mere formal requirement but foundational to equitable relief, as the Court could not compel performance of reciprocal obligations unless satisfied that the claimant himself had adhered to the discipline of the contract---Held, plaintiff seeking specific performance must establish continuous readiness and willingness through pleadings, conduct and reliable evidence, failing which the foundation for equitable relief becomes unsustainable. Cited Cases: • Messrs DW Pakistan (Private) Limited, Lahore v. Begum Anisa Fazl-I-Mahmood and others 2023 SCMR 555 • Ijaz Ul Haq v. Mrs. Maroof Begum Ahmed and others PLD 2023 SC 653 • Muhammad Yaqub v. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 497 • Narinjan v. Muhammad Yunus AIR 1932 Lah 265 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----First Sched., Appendix “A”, Form 47---Suit for specific performance---Pleading readiness and willingness---Requirement not an empty technicality---Supreme Court held that plaint in a suit for specific performance must conform to Form 47 of Appendix “A” to the First Schedule of C.P.C. and must contain a clear assertion that plaintiff “has been and still is ready and willing specifically to perform the agreement” on his part---Plaintiff must plead readiness and willingness in clear and specific terms and then prove the same by convincing evidence---Readiness must relate to contract as actually executed, including timelines and conditions, and must continue from inception of obligation until institution of suit---In the present case, plaint did not contain the categorical averment mandated by Form 47 and absence of clear continuous assertion weakened the very foundation of the claim for specific performance. Cited Cases: • Messrs DW Pakistan (Private) Limited, Lahore v. Begum Anisa Fazl-I-Mahmood and others 2023 SCMR 555 • Ijaz Ul Haq v. Mrs. Maroof Begum Ahmed and others PLD 2023 SC 653 • Muhammad Yaqub v. Muhammad Nasrullah Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 497 (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance of agreement to sell---Balance sale consideration---Tender, deposit or proof of financial capacity---Buyer’s primary obligation---Supreme Court held that in a contract for sale of immovable property the vendee’s core reciprocal obligation is payment of balance sale consideration---Readiness and willingness cannot be established in abstraction or by mere assertion; it must be reflected through objective acts showing financial capacity and preparedness to perform---Preparation of pay order, cashier cheque, segregation of funds, bank guarantee, bank statement, or prompt deposit in Court are evidentiary indicators of bona fide readiness---Though deposit of sale consideration at the time of filing suit is not an inflexible statutory precondition, failure to tender or otherwise demonstrate availability of funds materially affects the plaintiff’s claim---Where no credible material shows that buyer secured or tendered consideration in terms of agreement, Court may draw adverse inference regarding bona fides. Cited Cases: • Nazar Hussain and another v. Syed Iqbal Ahmad Qadri 2022 SCMR 1216 • Inayatullah Khan and others v. Shabir Ahmad Khan 2021 SCMR 686 • Muhammad Yousaf v. Allah Ditta and others 2021 SCMR 1241 • Mst. Noor Jehan and another v. Saleem Shahadat 2022 SCMR 918 • Muhammad Jamil and others v. Muhammad Arif 2021 SCMR 1108 • Hamood Mehmood v. Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others 2017 SCMR 2022 • Muhammad Shafiq Ullah and others v. Allah Bakhsh through LRs 2021 SCMR 763 (d) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---- ----S. 51---Reciprocal promises---Agreement to sell immovable property---Vendor’s obligation to execute sale deed dependent upon vendee’s readiness to pay balance sale consideration---Supreme Court held that obligations of vendor and vendee in sale of immovable property are ordinarily reciprocal and interdependent---Vendor cannot be compelled to execute and register sale deed unless vendee first establishes through pleadings and proof that he was ready and willing to perform his corresponding obligation to pay balance sale consideration---Court while exercising jurisdiction in suit for specific performance must examine mutuality of obligations and determine whether claimant has satisfied pre-requisite of demonstrating his own readiness to perform. Cited Case: • Mst. Samina Riffat and others v. Rohail Asghar and others 2021 SCMR 7 (e) Contract Act (IX of 1872) / Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Time as essence of contract---Sale of immovable property---Express contractual stipulation---Effect---Although time is not ordinarily treated as essence in transactions of immovable property, parties are competent to expressly stipulate otherwise---Where agreement prescribes definite time for payment and provides consequence for default, Court must give effect to contractual terms settled between parties---Equitable jurisdiction of Court does not extend to rewriting bargain or diluting express stipulations relating to timelines and forfeiture---In present case, agreement dated 03.06.2016 specifically required balance sale consideration to be paid on or before 15.01.2017; obligation was neither contingent nor deferred but formed core reciprocal promise of vendees---No tender of balance amount was made within stipulated time, no pay order, bank guarantee, bank statement or segregated funds were shown, and no immediate deposit was made in Court upon institution of suit---Deposit made only after Court direction and substantially beyond contractual deadline could not retrospectively cure absence of readiness and willingness at material time. Cited Cases: • Fazal Ur Rehman v. Ahmed Saeed Mughal and others 2004 SCMR 436 • Muhammad Jamil v. Muhammad Arif 2021 SCMR 1108 (f) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---- ----Specific performance---Belated deposit of balance consideration---Effect---Courts below treated subsequent deposit of balance sale consideration, made pursuant to Court direction after expiry of stipulated period, as sufficient to cure earlier default---Supreme Court held that such approach was contrary to settled principles---Jurisprudence did not equate belated compliance with continuous readiness and willingness---Court was required to examine whether plaintiff had secured, tendered or demonstrated availability of consideration on the due date fixed by contract and whether such readiness continued thereafter without interruption---Failure to conduct such inquiry amounted to overlooking a material legal requirement governing grant of specific performance---Record did not satisfactorily establish that respondents fulfilled essential precondition of continuous readiness and willingness; therefore decree for specific performance could not be sustained. (g) Administration of justice---- ----Concurrent findings of fact---Interference by Supreme Court---Misreading/non-reading of evidence and violation of settled principles---Although concurrent findings are not ordinarily disturbed, interference is warranted where findings result from misreading or non-reading of material evidence or are contrary to settled principles governing equitable relief---Courts below failed to properly examine absence of timely tender, absence of financial proof, absence of immediate deposit in Court, defective pleadings under Form 47 C.P.C., and contractual stipulation making time material for payment---Concurrent judgments therefore could not be maintained. Cited Cases: • Habib Ur Rehman and others v. Abdul Karim through LRs 2025 SCMR 1262 • United Bank Limited through its President and others v. Jamil Ahmed and others 2024 SCMR 164 / 2024 PLC 50 SC • Muhammad Nawaz alias Nawaza and others v. Member Judicial Board of Revenue and others 2014 SCMR 914 • Abdul Hameed and others v. Khalid and others 2007 SCMR 938 • Mst. Saadat Sultan and others v. Muhammad Zahur Khan and others 2006 SCMR 193 • Muhammad Aslam v. Mst. Ferozi and others PLD 2001 SC 213 • Muhammad Akhtar v. Mst. Manna and 3 others 2001 SCMR 1700 (h) Specific performance---- ----Earlier agreement dated 16.04.2014---Agreement already cancelled by competent Court---Finality of judgment---No decree for specific performance sustainable---Petitioner Muhammad Imran sought possession through specific performance of agreement dated 16.04.2014---Courts below dismissed his suit, appeal and Regular Second Appeal---Supreme Court held that agreement sought to be specifically performed had already been cancelled by Court of competent jurisdiction due to non-payment of balance sale consideration within stipulated time, in terms of contractual conditions---Such determination was not assailed further and had attained finality---No decree for specific performance could legally be sustained on basis of such cancelled agreement---Petition was devoid of merit and leave was refused. Disposition: Petitions for leave to appeal in C.P.L.A. Nos. 3649 and 3650 of 2025 were converted into appeals and allowed; impugned judgments of courts below were set aside; suit for specific performance filed by respondents No.3 and 4 on basis of agreement dated 03.06.2016 was dismissed; suit for cancellation of agreement filed by petitioners/respondents was decreed; suit instituted by Muhammad Imran in C.P.L.A. No.3639 of 2025 for specific performance on basis of agreement dated 16.04.2014 was dismissed and leave refused; earnest money paid under agreements dated 16.04.2014 and 03.06.2016 was ordered to be returned by respective recipients to concerned payers within thirty days from date of judgment.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XLI, Rr. 11, 12, 16 & 17---Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution---Appeal not fixed for hearing but for procuring attendance/service of respondent---Effect---Regular Second Appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed for non-prosecution on 26.10.2022---Record showed that on previous date, appeal had been adjourned for submission of correct address of respondent and for issuance of notice parvee, as respondent had reportedly shifted residence---Supreme Court held that on 26.10.2022 appeal was not fixed for hearing, rather it was fixed for procuring attendance of respondent by issuance of notice---High Court, in such circumstances, ought not to have dismissed appeal for non-prosecution, but should have passed an order in relation to service/proceedings for procuring attendance---Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C. applies where appeal is called on for hearing and appellant fails to appear; where appeal is not fixed for hearing, dismissal in default under said provision is not justified. Cited Cases: • Tehsil Municipal Administrator, Faisalabad v. Muhammad Saleem and others 2016 SCMR 2009 • Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XLI, Rr. 11 to 17---Expression “called on for hearing”---Meaning---Service of respondent and completion of earlier procedural steps---Supreme Court held that expression “called on for hearing” in Order XLI, Rule 17 presupposes completion of earlier steps envisaged by Rules 11 to 16 of Order XLI, C.P.C.---After appeal crosses preliminary hearing stage under Rule 11, appeal cannot be heard and decided without service of respondent or his counsel---Effective hearing of appeal means a date on which arguments are to be heard, which presupposes service of parties---Court must first ascertain whether respondent has been duly served before treating matter as one fixed for hearing---Where respondent had not yet been served and matter was pending for issuance of notice or correction of address, appeal could not be treated as having been called on for hearing for purposes of dismissal under Order XLI, Rule 17, C.P.C. Cited Case: • Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XLI, R. 17---Dismissal of appeal for non-appearance of appellant---Discretionary power---Mechanical dismissal deprecated---Supreme Court reiterated that under Order XLI, Rule 17, C.P.C., Court “may” dismiss appeal for non-appearance of appellant when appeal is fixed for hearing, therefore power is discretionary and not mandatory---Court is not bound in every case to dismiss appeal in default and may adjourn matter to another date where circumstances so require---Dismissal of appeal without appreciating that appeal was not fixed for hearing and without considering discretionary nature of power amounted to mechanical exercise of jurisdiction---Such order could not be sustained. Cited Case: • Manager, Jammu & Kashmir State Property in Pakistan v. Khuda Yar and another PLD 1975 SC 678 (d) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---- ----Arts. 168 & 181---Application for restoration/re-admission of appeal---Appeal not dismissed under Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C.---Applicable limitation---Article 168 provides thirty days for application seeking re-admission of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution under Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C.---Supreme Court held that since dismissal order dated 26.10.2022 could not be termed as an order passed under Order XLI, Rule 17(1), C.P.C., Article 168 was not attracted---In such circumstances, residuary Article 181 applied, providing limitation period of three years---Restoration application filed on 08.10.2024 was therefore within time---High Court erred in dismissing restoration application as barred by limitation. Cited Case: • Tehsil Municipal Administrator, Faisalabad v. Muhammad Saleem and others 2016 SCMR 2009 (e) Administration of justice---- ----Act of Court---Party should not suffer due to act of Court---Technicalities not to defeat merits---Supreme Court held that petitioners should not be made to suffer due to act of Court, particularly when appeal had been dismissed on a date not fixed for hearing---Mere technicalities, unless presenting insurmountable hurdles, should not defeat ends of justice, as legal formalities exist to safeguard paramount interest of justice---In circumstances, restoration of appeal for decision on merits was in interest of justice, subject to costs because petitioners’ conduct was also not aboveboard. Cited Cases: • Abdul Qudoos v. Commandant Frontier Constabulary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and another 2023 SCMR 334 • Sherin and 4 others v. Fazal Muhammad and 4 others 1995 SCMR 584 • The State v. Asif Adil and others 1997 SCMR 209 • Sajawal Khan v. Wali Muhammad and others 2002 SCMR 134 • Jawad Mir Muhammadi and others v. Haroon Mirza PLD 2007 SC 472 • Zulfiqar and others v. Shahadat Khan PLD 2007 SC 582 • Homeo Dr. Asma Noreen Syed v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Health Department and others 2022 SCMR 1546 • Mian Shehzad-ud-Din and 4 others v. Member, Board of Revenue S&E Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another 2002 YLR 3755 (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----Restoration of Regular Second Appeal---Costs imposed to balance equities---Supreme Court found impugned order dismissing restoration application unsustainable---Regular Second Appeal was restored to its original number and deemed pending before Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, for decision afresh after hearing parties in accordance with law within one month from receipt of judgment---However, as petitioners’ conduct was not aboveboard, they were burdened with costs of Rs.50,000 to be paid to respondents before High Court on first date of hearing; in case of failure, High Court was empowered to pass appropriate order. Disposition: Civil Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; impugned order dated 03.11.2025 passed by Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan was set aside; RSA No.50 of 2010 titled “Abdul Rehman, etc. v. Syed Jaffer Hussain (deceased) through L.Rs.” was restored/deemed pending before High Court for fresh decision after hearing parties within one month from receipt of judgment; petitioners were directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000 to respondents before High Court on first date of hearing, failing which High Court may pass appropriate order.

Summary: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----Challenge to mutation---Suit filed after twenty-two years---Unexplained delay---Effect---Mutation No.684 was sanctioned on 15.03.1980, whereas suit challenging the same was instituted on 16.05.2002 after lapse of more than twenty-two years---Plaintiff remained silent during such prolonged period and took no steps to question validity of mutation or underlying transaction---No convincing or legally acceptable explanation was furnished for such inordinate delay---Held, that 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---Suit was 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 others v. Sardar Baqir Ali through Legal Heirs and others 1992 SCMR 2435 (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 39---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 91---Fraudulent document or transaction---Suit for declaration/cancellation---Limitation---Plaintiff attempted to avoid bar of limitation by alleging that mutation was procured through fraud and misrepresentation---Held, that although fraud vitiates solemn acts, allegation of fraud must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved through reliable evidence---Where a document or transaction is alleged to have been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, matter falls within S.39 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 and suit seeking declaration or cancellation must be filed within limitation prescribed under Art.91 of Limitation Act, 1908, i.e. three years from date when alleged fraud comes to knowledge of plaintiff---Plea of fraud could not be invoked merely 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, 1984--- ----Fraud, forgery and misrepresentation---Burden of proof---Mutation challenged after long delay---Plaintiff alleged that mutation was result of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation and had been sanctioned without his consent or authority---Trial Court and First Appellate Court, after appraisal of oral and documentary evidence, concurrently held that plaintiff failed to prove fraud through independent evidence---Held, that bald allegations of fraud were insufficient---Fraud being a question of fact had to be established by reliable, convincing and cogent evidence---Plaintiff’s long silence for more than two decades further undermined credibility of allegation. (d) Revenue record--- ----Long-standing mutation entries---Laches, limitation and third-party rights---Effect---Mutation in question remained incorporated in revenue record for decades without challenge and third-party rights had also come into existence---Held, that long-standing entries in revenue record ought not to be unsettled lightly, particularly where they remained unquestioned for considerable period and rights accrued on their basis---Challenges to old mutation entries after prolonged inaction must be viewed with great circumspection and ordinarily ought not to be entertained. 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 (e) Revenue record--- ----Mutation incorporated in Jamabandi---Presumption of correctness---Burden to rebut---Once mutation was sanctioned and incorporated into Jamabandi, it formed part of regular revenue record and carried statutory presumption of truth---Plaintiff failed to produce convincing evidence to rebut such presumption---Held, that presumption of regularity and correctness attached to revenue entries could not be lightly displaced---Courts below rightly gave due weight to revenue record and held that plaintiff failed to discharge heavy burden required to dislodge presumption attached thereto. Cited Cases: • 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 (f) Land Revenue Act--- ----Mutation proceedings---Procedural irregularity---Effect on otherwise established sale transaction---Plaintiff raised objections regarding procedure adopted in attestation of mutation---Held, that even if certain procedural irregularities existed in attestation of mutation, such irregularities by themselves would not invalidate an otherwise established transaction of sale---Where authenticity and genuineness of underlying sale transaction is established, mere irregularity in mutation procedure does not affect binding effect of mutation---Technical defects in mutation process cannot defeat substantive rights where transaction is proved by credible oral and documentary evidence. 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 (g) Revenue record--- ----Mutation entries---Nature and evidentiary value---Mutation entries by themselves do not create title, but where underlying transaction is proved through credible evidence, such entries may validly reflect transfer of rights---In the present case, subordinate Courts examined oral and documentary evidence and concurrently held that transaction reflected in mutation was genuine and plaintiff had failed to establish fraud or misrepresentation---Held, that procedural objections regarding mutation proceedings could not annul transaction or justify setting aside concurrent findings recorded by subordinate Courts. (h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of fact---Scope of interference---Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently held that mutation reflected genuine sale transaction, fraud was not proved and suit was time-barred---High Court, in revision, reassessed evidence and substituted its own conclusions without identifying misreading, non-reading, perversity or material illegality in findings of Courts below---Held, that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and does not convert High Court into a third Court of fact---Concurrent findings of fact cannot ordinarily be disturbed unless based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, or suffering from perversity, illegality or material irregularity affecting merits of case---High Court exceeded settled limits of revisional jurisdiction. 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 (i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Misreading, non-reading and misappreciation of evidence---Distinction---Scope of revisional Court---Held, that misreading or non-reading of evidence may justify revisional interference where finding is perverse, absurd, jurisdictionally defective or contrary to law---Mere misappreciation or possibility of another view does not permit revisional Court to substitute its own conclusion for concurrent findings of Courts below---If facts have been justly tried by two Courts and both reached same conclusion, High Court should not revisit evidence merely to draw another conclusion. (j) Civil suit--- ----Challenge to mutation---Solitary statement of plaintiff versus documentary proof---Effect---Plaintiff alleged that he did not visit Patwari’s office on date of mutation but produced no independent witness and remained confined to his solitary statement---Mutation No.684 and Exchange Mutation No.683 were entered and sanctioned on same day with same identifying witnesses, which negated plaintiff’s stance---Held, that solitary statement was insufficient to dislodge documentary proof and revenue record produced by defendants---Subordinate Courts correctly concluded that plaintiff failed to prove fraud, forgery or misrepresentation. (k) Civil suit--- ----Suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction---Challenge to mutation after twenty-two years---Concurrent dismissal by Trial Court and First Appellate Court---High Court decreeing suit in revision---Supreme Court interference---Held, that cumulative effect of record showed that suit was hopelessly barred by limitation; allegations of fraud, forgery and misrepresentation remained unsubstantiated; mutation incorporated in revenue record for decades carried presumption of correctness; third-party rights had intervened; and High Court transgressed limits of revisional jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence---Impugned High Court judgment could not be sustained. Disposition: Appeals were allowed. Judgment dated 21.11.2019 passed by Islamabad High Court 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 stood dismissed. Pending CMAs were disposed of as infructuous. No order as to costs.

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.