Summary: (Against the order dated 10.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Larkana in Civil Revision Appeal No. S-05 of 2009). And (Against the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur in Civil Revision Appeals Nos. S-229 and S-230 of 2018). Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss.42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Name in official record, correction of---Principle---Petitioners/plaintiffs sought correction of parentage of their predecessor-in-interest in revenue record but Lower Appellate Court as well as High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction dismissed the suit---Validity---Party who asserts a fact to be corrected or otherwise has to prove the same through documentary or oral evidence but petitioners failed to do so---Mere assertion with regard to parentage in official record in absence of any declaration from Court of competent jurisdiction or correction of record by authorities concerned could not otherwise be given any credibility---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no error or illegality in it---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Dr. Shah Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in all cases). Sarfaraz Ahmed Akhund, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1 (in all cases). Hakim Ali Sheikh, Additional Advocate General Sindh along with Ms. Rida Zahra Talpur, Assistant Commissioner Pano Aqil for the State. Date of hearing: 15th October, 2024.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 8, 42 & 54---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), Ss. 23 & 26---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for possession, declaration and injunction---Concurrent findings of facts---Power of attorney---Delay in registration---Effect---Petitioner / plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property---Respondents / defendants claimed their ownership of suit property on the basis of general power of attorney executed in their favour by petitioner / plaintiff in year 1992, registered in year 2004---Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently dismissed the suit---Validity---Successor of attorney holder had never mentioned that any delay had been caused in sending the document or that he had received the document of year 1992 in year 2004, therefore, such a delay was unimaginable---Document had wrongly been presented and wrongly allowed to be registered, without any inquiry as to the authenticity of the document or reasons for delay---On the date of registration, petitioner / plaintiff was not staying abroad---Registration of power of attorney conducted in violation of express provisions of Registration Act, 1908, was sufficient to divest the document of its character as a registered instrument---Violation of express provisions of law termed to be an illegality which was discoverable in instrument of registration of the power of attorney---Both the Courts below did not address such illegality---Registered sale deed in favour of respondent / defendant was entirely deriving its validity and authority from the power of attorney which itself was defective, therefore, subsequent sale deed was also illegal and should have been declared ineffective upon the rights of petitioner---Power of attorney clearly mentioned date of 12-5-1992 and when same was being registered on 20-12-2004 i.e. one day before the registration of the sale deed on 21-12-2004 and the vendee accepted such sale he had been really acting as extremely credulous person---Respondent / defendant did not act with due care and caution and he could not be extended benefit of S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882---Besides, his bona fide in the peculiar circumstances of the case could not be readily inferred---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction decreed the suit in favour of petitioner / plaintiff while setting aside both the judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below being not sustainable---Revision was allowed, in circumstances. Samar Gul v. Mohabat Khan 2000 SCMR 974 rel. Shahid Qayyum Khatak for Petitioner. Ihsan Ullah, Muhammad Tariq and Atta Ullah Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 1st August, 2024.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.114, O.XVII, Rr.2, 3, O.XLIII, R.1 & O.IX, R.4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Suits for declaration with perpetual and mandatory injunction---Filing of application for adjourning the suits sine die till the decision of pending writ petitions---Non-appearance of parties---Fixation of applications and not the suits for hearing when the notices for invoking powers under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C., were issued and suits were dismissed for non-compliance of order of Trial Court to argue the suits in absence of petitioner---Appeals preferred by the petitioner were dismissed being time barred and the review applications were dismissed being incompetent---Validity---Dismissal of suit under O.XVII, Rr.2 & 3, C.P.C. provides the remedy under O.IX, R.4, C.P.C., where the plaintiff may bring a fresh suit, or the court may restore the suit on the application filed by the plaintiff---Orders of the Trial Court dismissing the suits for non-compliance of order by invoking the provisions of O.XVII R.3, C.P.C were not in consonance with law---Order XLIII R.1, C.P.C., is in respect of the appeals against the orders, however, there is no reflection of the appeals under O.XLIII, R.1, C.P.C.---It is the duty of the court to be aware of the facts and proper application of law, however, the appeals filed by the petitioners were dismissed being time barred against which review applications were filed which too were dismissed---Initial order of the Trial Court was not in consonance with law as the main suits before the Trial Court were not fixed for hearing rather the suits were fixed for hearing of the applications, which were submitted by the respondents to adjourn the cases sine die and the same were required to be decided after hearing the parties either in acceptance thereof or dismissal but in the absence of both the parties, the suits were dismissed which were not fixed before the court for hearing---Scope of application under S.114 read with O.XLVII, R.1, C.P.C., is limited and review is possible only when there is an error floating on the surface of the record which did not appear in the matters in hand, thus, the Trial and Appellate Courts had committed an illegality while passing the orders as suits could not be dismissed for non-compliance of direction of the court when no one was before the court---Civil Revisions were allowed, in circumstances. Muhammad Aslam v. Nazeer Ahmed 2008 SCMR 942; Lahore Municipal Corporation v. S. Abdul Rahim and 3 others PLD 1973 Lahore 391 and Amanullah Khan and 5 others v. Mst. Hayat Bibi and 4 others 2006 CLC 1546 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XVII, Rr.2 & 3---Issuance of notice under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. in absence of parties---Effect---Notice to take a further step towards the logical end or the conclusion of the lis pending adjudication before the court could only be issued in the presence of the parties and not in their absence---No one was present before the court when notice was issued under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C.---Trial Court could have proceeded in terms of O.XVII, R.2, C.P.C., but that was not done in the present matter and the Trial Court had gone to the extent of dismissing the suit under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. (c) Administration of justice--- ----Matters are to be decided on merits instead of technicalities and parties are to be allowed to lead evidence in support of their cases. Aslam Khan Chamkani for Petitioner. Syed Murtaza Zahid Gillani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th July, 2024.

Summary: ----Ss. 42, 8 & 54---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.3--- Shamilat-Deh---Partition---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain a suit for declaration---Scope---Exclusion of certain land from operation of Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act, 1967)---Petitioners claimed their share in the Shamilat-Deh by way of instituting a suit, which was dismissed for want of non-impleadment of necessary and proper parties---Appeal preferred by the petitioners was partially accepted by declaring them co-sharer to certain extent and no declaratory decree was passed for the reason that since the subject matter of the suit was Shamilat-Deh, therefore, Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit---Validity---Question of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or Revenue Courts established under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1967 (Act, 1967) in the matter of Shamilat lands depends upon the nature of the property---Disputed property was admittedly recorded as Ghair Mumkin Abadi in the revenue record, thus, Revenue Courts established under the Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as the jurisdiction of Revenue Courts was only confined to the lands which were used for agricultural or ancillary purposes and assessed for land revenue, which was certainly not the case of the petitioners---Property in dispute being Shamilat land and comprised of Ghair Mumkin Abadi was excluded from the operation of the Act, 1967 in terms of S.3 of the Act, 1967, and as such the same fell within the jurisdiction of Civil Court, albeit, for maintaining suit for declaration in the matters of Shamilat-Deh filed under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, the entire proprietary body of the village was required to be impleaded being necessary and proper party, as no effective decree could be passed without their impleadment in the suit---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances, while remitting the matter to the Trial Court with the direction to allow the petitioners to file an application for impleadment of the entire proprietary body of the village being necessary and proper parties in the array of defendants in the suit. Fayaz and others v. Muhammad Haneef (Civil Revision No. 700-P of 2022); Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousuf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9; Rabnawaz and others v. Akbar Ali and others 1989 SCMR 93; Atta Muhammad v. Sahibzada Manzoor Ahmad and others 1992 SCMR 138; Sher Hassan's case (Civil Revision No. 552-P/ 2020); Ghulam Rasool v. Ikram Ullah PLD 1965 Lah. 429; Muhammad Arif and others v. Nawab and others 1997 SCMR 1792 and PLD 2019 SC 297 rel. Asif Ali Shah for Petitioners. Shehzad Gul Khattak for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th May, 2024.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) — O.XLI, R.33 & S.107 — Appellate Court — Scope of powers — Complete justice — Specific performance — Forged agreement — Role of Trial Court. Appellate Court, in exercise of powers under O.XLI, R.33 & S.107, C.P.C., can pass any order necessary to meet the ends of justice. Where the trial court had failed to properly appreciate evidence or exercise its powers to verify signatures on a disputed agreement to sell, the appellate court was justified in undertaking corrective measures. Trial Court did not frame appropriate issues despite clear pleadings regarding forgery and denial of execution of agreement to sell. The Appellate Court held that it could take steps such as verifying signatures through handwriting expert, summoning witnesses or comparing documents itself to ensure full adjudication of the matter. Cited Cases: • PLD 1989 SC 597 • 2012 SCMR 1258 • 1997 SCMR 1692 • 2005 CLC 686 (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) — S.22 — Discretionary relief — Specific performance — Forged signature — Non-fulfilment of statutory proof — Refusal of decree. Claim for specific performance is discretionary in nature. Plaintiff must strictly fulfill requirements of law including attestation by two witnesses under Arts.17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Where execution of the agreement was doubtful, terms uncertain, and signature on the sale agreement was found to be printed (not handwritten) by the forensic report, no decree could be passed in plaintiff's favour. Relief under S.22 of the Specific Relief Act may be refused even where some evidence of agreement exists. Cited Cases: • 2019 SCMR 524 • 2015 SCMR 828 • 2017 SCMR 1696 • PLD 2015 SC 187 • 2012 SCMR 900 (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — Arts.17, 59, 79 & 84 — Documentary evidence — Specific performance — Agreement not proved — Signature found printed — Evidentiary value. Agreement to sell (Exh.P.1/1) presented by the plaintiff was found to bear signatures printed via artificial means. Handwriting expert’s report revealed clear indicators of non-genuineness. Though expert evidence under Art.59 is not conclusive, when considered in conjunction with contradictions in witness statements and lack of attestation under Art.79, such report became confirmatory of the defence plea. The Appellate Court was also entitled to make independent comparison of handwriting under Art.84. Cited Cases: • 2019 CLD 894 • 1996 SCMR 464 • 2022 SCMR 933 • 2010 YLR 358 (d) Evidence — Burden of proof — Article 117, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 — Specific performance — Plaintiff's duty to prove execution. In suit for specific performance, burden lies on the plaintiff to prove execution of the agreement under Article 117. Plaintiff produced six witnesses; however, material contradictions, inability to confirm dates, execution, contents, and presence of marginal witnesses rendered the evidence unreliable. One key witness admitted the agreement was later cancelled. Others failed to corroborate execution as required under law. (e) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 — Art.10A — Fair trial — Judicial duty — Role of trial courts in evidence management — Directions issued. The Court highlighted trial courts’ obligation to proactively manage evidence and resolve issues timely to uphold Art.10A (right to fair trial). Trial courts must utilize all procedural tools such as directing admission/denial of documents, appointing commissions, recording better statements under Order X, and imposing costs under the Costs of Litigation Act, 2017 to avoid unnecessary delay. Judicial officers failing to ensure efficient trial may face monitoring and disciplinary proceedings. Cited Case: • 2022 CLC 1064 (f) Costs of Litigation Act, 2017 — Implementation — Trial court's failure to impose cost — Administrative recommendations made. The judgment emphasized enforcement of the Costs of Litigation Act, 2017. Trial courts are duty-bound to issue cost notices, record cost statements, and dissuade dilatory tactics. High Court may assign administrative judges to preliminarily screen suits for frivolity before assigning to trial. District Judges/MIT to monitor delays and report failures to the High Court for remedial action. (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) — S.151 — Inherent powers — Role of court in ensuring justice despite party defaults. Court has inherent powers under S.151 C.P.C. to go beyond formal pleadings where justice so demands. It may summon witnesses, call record, or direct forensic tests even without party request. The failure of trial court to exercise such powers in a case involving disputed agreement and alleged forgery was deprecated. (h) Civil Petition — Review application — Infructuousness — When review not maintainable. Where the relief sought in review petition has already been implemented or overtaken by subsequent developments, the application becomes infructuous. In present case, since the document had already been examined by handwriting expert pursuant to order under challenge, review application stood dismissed as infructuous. (i) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) — S.476 — Proceedings for forgery — Scope — Remand for fresh decision. In view of findings regarding forged signatures on the sale agreement, the petition seeking action under S.476 Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal proceedings was allowed. The matter was remanded to the concerned court for afresh decision on merits including recording of pro and contra evidence. Disposition: Regular First Appeal No. 512 of 2022 allowed. Judgment and decree dated 30.07.2022 set aside. Review Application No. 9 of 2024 dismissed as infructuous. Writ Petition No. 3742 of 2022 allowed; matter remanded for decision afresh under S.476 Cr.P.C.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908):----O.VII, R.11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Rejection of plaint---Legal character---Cause of action---Scope---Plaints of two suits filed by residents of Shaheed Shah Inayat Village (SSI Village) were rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C., inter alia, on the ground that the village had been de-regularized and land was reserved for public amenities---Appellants challenged the rejection on the ground that no formal cancellation order existed and that allotment orders in their favor remained valid---Held, rejection of plaint requires that the cause of action be barred by law on the face of plaint; contentions of parties and evidence cannot be adjudicated at this stage---Appellants asserted leasehold rights based on allotment documents and claimed infringement of those rights---Where no express cancellation order was on record, the basis for rejecting the plaint under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. did not stand---Impugned order rejecting plaints was set aside; suits restored for adjudication in accordance with law.Cited Cases:• Jewan v. Federation of Pakistan 1994 SCMR 826• Raja Ali Shan v. Essem Hotel 2007 SCMR 741• Abdul Karim v. Florida Builders PLD 2012 SC 247• Al Meezan Investment Management v. WAPDA First Sukuk PLD 2017 SC 1(b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877):----S.42---Declaratory relief---Legal character---Regularization---Cancellation---Appellants claimed declaratory relief over plots in SSI Village based on leasehold rights granted by the Government---Contended that no proper cancellation order of village regularization existed, and thus rights remained intact---Held, S.42, Specific Relief Act, 1877, allows persons asserting legal character or right in property to seek declaration---Where official cancellation was neither formalized nor communicated through proper legal process, suit seeking declaration could not be said to be barred by law---Scope of S.42 not limited to declared ownership; lease rights and threatened infringement provide basis for maintainability.----Cited Cases:• Parveen Begum v. Shah Jehan PLD 1996 Kar. 210• Abdul Razzak Khamosh v. Abbas Ali PLD 2004 Kar. 269• Arif Majeed Malik v. Board of Governors 2004 CLC 1029• Naseem-ul-Haq v. Raes Aftab Ali Lashari 2015 YLR 550**(c) Injunctions---Equitable relief---Amenity land---Burden of proof---Claim of regularization of village---Injunction refused---Appellants failed to establish a prima facie case regarding the authenticity of SSI Village and their proprietary interest---Satellite imagery (SUPARCO) showed no existence of village prior to cut-off date (31.12.2000) required under applicable regularization policy (SOC, 2008)---Appellants did not fulfill criteria under SOC, 2008 nor executed registered conveyance deeds---Held, injunction is a discretionary remedy requiring proof of balance of convenience and irreparable loss---Where the very basis of claim is in doubt, injunctive relief cannot be granted---Ad interim orders recalled; injunction application not restored on restoration of suits.----Cited Cases:• Puri Terminal Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan 2004 SCMR 1092• Supreme Court Employees Cooperative Housing Society v. Marshal Construction Management 2022 SCMR 366(d) Constitution Petition No. 9 of 2010 (Naimatullah Khan case):----Amenity plots---Illegal conversion---Restoration---Supreme Court directives for restoration of amenity land such as parks, playgrounds, and graveyards to original use---SSI Village land overlapped with plots reserved for public amenities under Karachi’s Master Plan---Held, Supreme Court's directives and precedents (including Ardeshir Cowasjee v. KBCA 1999 SCMR 2883) bar conversion of amenity land for residential or commercial purposes---No claim over such land can be maintained regardless of assertions of regularization.----Cited Cases:• Ardeshir Cowasjee v. Karachi Building Control Authority 1999 SCMR 2883• Abdul Karim v. Nasir Salim Baig 2020 SCMR 111----Disposition:Appeals allowed---Impugned order rejecting plaints set aside---Suit Nos. 1598/2013 and 888/2014 restored for trial---Injunction application not restored---Appellants not entitled to equitable relief of injunction.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11, O.I, Rr. 9 & 10 & O.VI, R. 17---Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 135---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Shamilat Deh---Suit for declaration alongwith permanent and mandatory injunction---Misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary party---Amendments in pleadings---Scope---Application for rejection of plaint was accepted on the grounds that neither relief of possession was claimed in the suit, nor the entire propriety body of the Shamilat Deh was impleaded as party---Appellate Court set aside order of rejection of plaint and remanded the matter to Trial Court for decision on merits---Validity---Co-sharer in exclusive possession of a certain portion of joint land can retain possession of the same to the extent of his shares, so long as there is no official partition between the co-sharers by metes and bounds---Suit filed by a co-owner under the provisions of S. 42 read with S. 54 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is maintainable, who is in possession of a piece of Shamilat land, which has not yet been partitioned and there is a denial to his title and threat to his possession by the other members of the proprietary body---Plaint cannot be rejected for want of impleadment of entire proprietary body of the village because the necessary and proper party can be impleaded by the Court, at any stage, of the proceedings in order to pass an effective decree in terms of the provisions of O. 1, R. 10, C.P.C.---No suit shall be defeated on account of mis-joinder or non-joinder of the necessary parties, rather, the courts are mandated to adjudicate upon the matter in dispute, taking into account the specific facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the rights and interests of the parties directly involved therein, as postulated by O.1, R. 9 of C.P.C.---Plaint could not be rejected merely for want of non-seeking therein a consequential relief, despite being mandatory in such like suits, rather, the Trial Court could direct the plaintiff to amend his plaint by including consequential relief therein in order to secure ends of justice---Suit cannot be dismissed on account of any defect in its form and the court is competent to direct amendment in plaint for extending relief to which the party is otherwise entitled on merits---Courts should exercise their powers liberally while allowing the amendments in the cases where such amendments are necessary to secure the ends of justice---Civil revision was partially allowed, in the circumstances and impugned findings of Appellate Court were modified to the extent that the respondent was allowed to file an amended plaint seeking therein partition of the entire Shamilat Deh by impleading the entire proprietary body of the village and consequential relief of possession. Muhammad Muzaffar Khan v. Muhammad Yousuf Khan PLD 1959 SC 9; Rabnawaz and others v. Akbar Ali and others 1989 SCMR 93; Atta Muhammad v. Sahibzada Manzoor Ahmad and others 1992 SCMR 138; Muhammad Ramzan v. Nasir Hussain and another PLD 1959 SC 147; Samar Gul v. Central Government and others PLD 1986 SC 35; Mir Mazar v. Azim PLD 1993 SC 332; Samar Gul v. Central Governments and others PLD 1986 SC 35; Ahmad Din v. Muhammad Shafi PLD 1971 SC 762; Ghulam Bibi's case 1985 PLD SC 345; Javaid Iqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another PLD 2006 SC 66 and Jamal Din alias Muhammad Jamal v. Mst. Mehmooda Begum 2002 CLC 361 rel. Mian Iftikhar Jan (Nowshera) for Petitioners. Muhammad Adnan Qureshi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 29th April, 2024.

Summary: (a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882: ---Ss. 8, 55(1)(b)--- Ownership rights---Transfer of property---Easement rights---Dominant heritage--- Petitioners sought a declaration, possession, and injunction regarding a disputed street and a portion of property measuring 9x18 sq.ft. allegedly falling under house No.A/89-A. Evidence revealed that respondents Nos. 1 to 4, who were prior owners, had sold the disputed property to respondents Nos. 6 and 7, and such sale included all easement rights annexed to the property under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Petitioners failed to prove that the disputed street exclusively fell within their share or that respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were restricted from using it. Held, transfer of property inherently includes associated easements unless expressly excluded, and respondents Nos. 6 and 7 had the right to use the subject street. ----Cited Case: Bahadur Khan v. Karim Gul PLD 2022 Balochistan 51 (b) Doctrine of Caveat Emptor: ---Obligation to verify title---Petitioners' failure to examine records at the time of purchase---** Petitioners contended that respondents Nos. 5 to 7 illegally transferred a portion of the subject street. However, evidence demonstrated that the subject street had been equally recorded for house Nos. A/89 and A/89-A since December 2010, and petitioners failed to object or verify this at the time of their purchase. Under the doctrine of caveat emptor, buyers must examine title documents and cannot subsequently challenge the rights of recorded lessees. (c) Administration of justice--- Concurrent findings of subordinate courts---No interference in absence of legal infirmity--- Trial Court and Appellate Court dismissed the petitioners' claims, holding that the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 were in lawful possession of the disputed property and entitled to use the subject street. Petitioners failed to prove exclusive entitlement, and no evidence rebutted the presumption under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Held, concurrent findings of fact by subordinate courts, being free from legal error, do not warrant interference in revision. ----Disposition: Civil revision petition dismissed.

Summary: Background: The appellants filed a suit for declaration cum perpetual injunction and, alternatively, for a decree of specific performance of contract in the Court of Additional District Judge, Muzaffarabad on 10.08.2019. The suit was against several defendants, and it involved land in the village Manak Piyan. According to the revenue record, the total Shamilat deh land in the village was 415 kanals and 18 marlas, with 311 kanals and 18 ½ marlas being dividable among the owners. Various agreements to sell portions of this land were made between the plaintiffs and the defendants over different dates. The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of their purchased land and sought protection against the defendants' alleged attempts to forcibly dispossess them. -----Issues: 1- Whether a decree for declaration regarding Shamilat deh land can be passed without legal partitioning. 2- Whether a decree for perpetual injunction can be issued in favor of the plaintiffs based on agreements to sell. 3- The validity and legal effect of cognovits filed by defendants No. 1 to 8. 4- The legality of specific performance of contract regarding Shamilat deh land which has not been legally partitioned. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The learned Court below dismissed the suit for lack of proof on 24.01.2020. The appellants argued that multiple reliefs were sought and at least a decree for perpetual injunction should have been issued. However, the Court found the following: A decree for declaration regarding Shamilat deh land cannot be passed until the land is legally partitioned. This is supported by the precedent in 2016 SCR 107 and 2017 SCR 1654. Agreements to sell do not bestow ownership rights, and thus a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction based on such agreements is not maintainable. Cognovits from defendants No. 1 to 8 have no legal effect in granting ownership or perpetual injunction for Shamilat deh land. This is supported by 2017 SCR 1653 and 2016 SCR 505. Specific performance of contract cannot be granted as the suit land is Shamilat deh land, which has not been partitioned. The defendants were not legally competent to execute sale deeds for un-partitioned Shamilat land. While the plaintiffs cannot be granted a decree for perpetual injunction or specific performance of contract, they cannot be dispossessed without due process of law as per 2017 SCR 464. -----Citations/Precedents: 2016 SCR 107 2017 SCR 1654 2017 SCR 1653 2016 SCR 505 2017 SCR 464

Summary: Background: The petitioners filed a suit for declaration, specific performance, and injunction against the respondents before the learned Civil Judge Class-I, Rawalpindi. Due to the respondents' absence, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 7th February 2020, and the suit was decreed ex-parte on 5th July 2021. The respondents filed an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to annul the decree, which was accepted on 7th July 2023. The petitioners' revision petition against this decision was dismissed on 14th October 2023, leading to the current petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court's decision to proceed ex-parte against the respondents was lawful. 2- Whether the annulment of the ex-parte decree by the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revision petition by the Additional District Judge were justified. 3- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Ex-parte Proceedings: The trial court proceeded ex-parte against the respondents due to their absence and issued a proclamation in the newspaper without proper efforts for personal service. The trial court did not follow the mandatory provisions of Order V Rules 16, 18, and 19 of the CPC, which require substantial compliance before resorting to substituted service through publication. ---Annulment of Ex-parte Decree: The respondents were residents of England, and proper service procedures, including personal service and postal communication, were not followed. The court found that the substituted service was invalid, as it was not justified by prior efforts to serve the respondents personally. Consequently, the ex-parte proceedings and decree were annulled, and this decision was affirmed by the revisional court. ---Relief under Article 199: The petitioners failed to demonstrate any material irregularity or legal perversity in the decisions of the lower courts. The petitioners' request for writ of certiorari under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan was found to lack merit, as they could not show that the annulled order was without lawful authority or suffered from material illegalities. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition in limine, upholding the decisions of the lower courts to annul the ex-parte decree and denying the petitioners' request for relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. ----Citations/Precedents: Mrs. NARGIS LATIF vs Mrs. FEROZ AFAQ AHMED KHAN (2001 SCMR 99) Haji AKBAR and others vs GUL BARAN and 7 others (1996 SCMR 1703) WAPDA vs GHULAM HUSSAIN (2000 CLC 530) Syed SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs Messrs FEDERATION OF EMPLOYEES COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES LTD. (2003 CLC 1011) MEHR DIN through Legal Heirs vs AZIZAN and another (1994 SCMR 1110) AMJAD KHAN v. MUHAMMAD IRSHAD (DECEASED) through LRs (2020 SCMR 2155) CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEPCO and others v. MUHAMMAD FAZIL and others (2019 SCMR 919)