The plaintiff claimed that the transfer of plot was bogus, but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, recognizing the legality of the attested power of attorney and other documents.The plaintiff claimed that the transfer of plot was bogus, but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, recognizing the legality of the attested power of attorney and other documents.The plaintiff claimed that the transfer of plot was bogus, but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, recognizing the legality of the attested power of attorney and other documents.The plaintiff claimed that the transfer of plot was bogus, but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, recognizing the legality of the attested power of attorney and other documents.The plaintiff claimed that the transfer of plot was bogus, but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, recognizing the legality of the attested power of attorney and other documents.

The plaintiff claimed that the transfer of plot was bogus, but the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision, recognizing the legality of the attested power of attorney and other documents.

سپریم کورٹ نے کیس کے فیصلے میں مندرجہ ذیل اہم ریمارکس دیے:

1. **دستاویزات کی قانونی حیثیت:** عدالت نے اس بات کا اظہار کیا کہ مدعی نے خود پاور آف اٹارنی اور سیل ڈیڈز کی قانونی حیثیت کو صحیح تسلیم کیا اور ان کی تصدیق کی۔ مدعی نے ان دستاویزات کو چیلنج کرنے میں ناکامی کا مظاہرہ کیا، جو کہ ان کی قانونی حیثیت کو تسلیم کرنے کا سبب بنا۔

2. **ثبوت اور چیلنج:** عدالت نے نوٹ کیا کہ مدعی نے پاور آف اٹارنی کی اصل اور اس سے متعلقہ دستاویزات کو خود ہی پیش کیا۔ چونکہ مدعی نے ان دستاویزات کو صحیح طور پر چیلنج نہیں کیا اور ان کے خلاف کوئی مؤثر ثبوت پیش نہیں کیا، اس لیے ان کی قانونی حیثیت برقرار رکھی گئی۔

3. **قانونی درستگی:** عدالت نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو درست اور قانونی قرار دیا۔ اس نے اس بات پر زور دیا کہ جب مدعی نے پاور آف اٹارنی اور منتقلی کی دستاویزات کی قانونی حیثیت کو صحیح تسلیم کیا اور کوئی متبادل ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا، تو ٹرائل کورٹ کا فیصلہ صحیح تھا۔

4. **بوجھ کا بٹوارہ:** عدالت نے اس بات کا بھی ذکر کیا کہ مدعی نے دستاویزات کی قانونی حیثیت کو چیلنج کرنے کے بجائے، ان کو خود ہی پیش کیا اور کوئی متبادل ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا۔ یہ عدم تصدیق اس بات کی دلیل بنی کہ پاور آف اٹارنی اور منتقلی کی دستاویزات قانونی طور پر درست ہیں۔

سپریم کورٹ نے اس فیصلے کے ذریعے یہ واضح کیا کہ جب قانونی دستاویزات کی تصدیق اور چیلنج کرنے کا بوجھ مدعی پر ہو، اور وہ اس بوجھ کو پورا نہ کرے، تو ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا جائے گا۔

**مدعا:** مدعی نے پلاٹ کے مالک ہونے کا اعلان کرنے کے لیے مقدمہ دائر کیا۔ اس نے دعویٰ کیا کہ پلاٹ کو بغیر اس کی اجازت کے منتقل کیا گیا، اور یہ کہ انتقال کی دستاویزات جعلی اور اس کے خلاف سازش کے نتیجے میں تیار کی گئی تھیں۔

**جواب:** مدعا علیہ نے دعویٰ کیا کہ مدعی نے اصل میں پاور آف اٹارنی کے ذریعے پلاٹ کی منتقلی کی تھی، اور وہ قانونی طور پر پلاٹ کے مالک ہیں۔ انہوں نے یہ بھی کہا کہ مدعی نے بعد میں پلاٹ خریدا اور گھر تعمیر کیا، لیکن اس دوران کوئی اعتراض نہیں کیا۔

**فیصلہ:**

1. **ٹرائل کورٹ:** ٹرائل کورٹ نے مدعی کا مقدمہ مسترد کر دیا، کیونکہ اس نے پاور آف اٹارنی اور منتقلی کی دستاویزات کی قانونی حیثیت کو صحیح مانا۔

2. **پہلی اپیلیٹ کورٹ:** اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے مدعی کی اپیل کو قبول کیا اور مقدمہ کو منظور کر لیا، یعنی مدعی کو پلاٹ کا مالک قرار دیا۔

3. **پشاور ہائی کورٹ:** ہائی کورٹ نے اپیلیٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے کی توثیق کی اور ریویژن درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔

4. **سپریم کورٹ:** سپریم کورٹ نے اپیلیٹ کورٹ اور ہائی کورٹ کے فیصلوں کو کالعدم قرار دیا اور ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا، یہ تسلیم کرتے ہوئے کہ مدعی نے پاور آف اٹارنی اور منتقلی کی قانونی حیثیت کو چیلنج نہیں کیا اور وہ اسے صحیح طور پر ثابت نہیں کر سکا۔

یہ فیصلے اس بات پر مبنی تھے کہ مدعی نے خود ہی قانونی طور پر درست دستاویزات کو پیش کیا اور چیلنج نہ کرنے کی صورت میں ان دستاویزات کی قانونی حیثیت کو تسلیم کیا گیا۔

**سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان

(اپیل کی دائرہ اختیار)**

**سیول پیٹیشن نمبر 3877/2023**

**پشاور ہائی کورٹ کے 25.09.2023 کے فیصلے کے خلاف، سی آر نمبر 1153-P آف 2019**

**موجودہ:**

- جسٹس یاہیا افریدی

- جسٹس امین-الدین خان

- جسٹس عائشہ اے. ملک

**فیصلہ:**

1. **پس منظر:** اسلامی جمہوریہ پاکستان کے آئین کے آرٹیکل 185(3) کے تحت 25.09.2023 کے فیصلے کے خلاف درخواست دائر کی گئی ہے، جس میں سیول رویژن نمبر 1153-P آف 2019 کو مسترد کر دیا گیا تھا۔ درخواست گزار نے ہائی کورٹ اور نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کے خلاف چیلنج کیا ہے۔

2. **کارروائی:** عدالت نے تمام متعلقہ فریقین کو نوٹس جاری کیا اور ریکارڈ کا جائزہ لیا۔ مقدمہ ابتدائی طور پر مدعی نمبر 1 نے ایک پلاٹ کے مالک ہونے کے اعلان کے لیے دائر کیا تھا، دعویٰ کیا کہ پراپرٹی کو اس کی اجازت کے بغیر منتقل کیا گیا تھا اور یہ دستاویزات جعلی تھیں۔

3. **محکمہ عدالت کا فیصلہ:** سیکھا ہوا ٹرائل کورٹ نے 12.11.2013 کو مقدمہ خارج کر دیا۔

4. **اپیلیٹ کورٹ کا فیصلہ:** پہلی اپیلیٹ کورٹ نے 09.10.2019 کو مدعی کی اپیل قبول کی اور مقدمہ منظور کر لیا۔

5. **ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ:** پشاور ہائی کورٹ نے اپیلیٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے سے متفق ہو کر ریویژن درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا۔

6. **درخواست گزار کا مؤقف:** درخواست گزار کا کہنا ہے کہ ریویژنل کورٹ نے ایسے فیصلے پر انحصار کیا جو اس کیس کی حقیقت سے مطابقت نہیں رکھتے۔ درخواست گزار نے یہ دعویٰ کیا کہ ابتدا میں مدعی نمبر 3 کو شامل نہیں کیا گیا تھا، جس کے بارے میں کہا جاتا ہے کہ اس نے مدعی سے پاور آف اٹارنی حاصل کی تھی۔ درخواست گزار کا کہنا ہے کہ پلاٹ کو اچھی نیت سے خریدا گیا اور گھر تعمیر کیا گیا، بغیر کسی اعتراض کے۔

7. **جواب دہندگان کا مؤقف:** مدعی نمبر 1 اپیلیٹ کورٹ اور ریویژنل کورٹ کے فیصلے کی حمایت کرتا ہے۔ جبکہ مدعی نمبر 2 سے 5 نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کی تائید کی۔

8. **عدالت کا تجزیہ:** عدالت نے دیکھا کہ مدعی نے پاور آف اٹارنی یا سیل ڈیڈز کو درست طریقے سے چیلنج نہیں کیا۔ مدعی نے خود ہی ان دستاویزات کو پیش کیا جو کہ درست اور رجسٹرڈ تھیں۔ گواہ کو کراس ایگزامین کرنے اور دستاویزات کو چیلنج نہ کرنے کی وجہ سے پاور آف اٹارنی اور بعد کی منتقلی کی قانونی حیثیت کو درست سمجھا۔

9. **فیصلہ:** عدالت نے ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے میں کوئی قانونی غلطی نہیں دیکھی۔ ٹرائل کورٹ کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا گیا جو مقدمہ خارج کرنے کے حوالے سے تھا۔

10. **حکم:** درخواست کو منظور کیا جاتا ہے، اور ریویژنل اور اپیلیٹ کورٹ کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دیا جاتا ہے۔ ٹرائل کورٹ کا مقدمہ خارج کرنے کا فیصلہ برقرار رہتا ہے۔

**اسلام آباد، 09 مئی 2024**

**ماہر جاوید بھٹی**

**رپورٹنگ کے لیے منظور شدہ**

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

he be declared owner of the suit plot fully described in

the plaint, plaintiff never appointed

185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 leave

has been sought against the judgment dated 25.09.2023 whereby Civil

Revision No. 1153-P of 2019 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Mr. Naseer ud Din, ASC via video

link from Peshawar on behalf of

respondent Nos. 2-5.

Nemo for respondent No. 6.

Mr.Afnan Karim Kundi, ASC.

Syed Rifaqat

Hussain Shah,

AOR.

Present

Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi

Mr, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan

Mrs. Justice Ayesha A. Malik

(AM)

Civil Petition No.3877/2023

Against the judgment dated

25.09,2023 passed by the

Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in

C.R.No.ll53-Pof2019

Amin-ud-Din Khan. J. Through this petition filed under Article

issued to the other side by this Court. We have

heard the

through the record with their able assistance.

A notice was

learned counsel for available contesting parties and gone

A suit was filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff for declaration that

the head-note of

the plaint. As per pleadings in

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

he be declared owner of the suit plot fully described in

the plaint, plaintiff never appointed

185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 leave

has been sought against the judgment dated 25.09.2023 whereby Civil

Revision No. 1153-P of 2019 filed by the petitioner was dismissed

A notice was

issued to the other side by this Court. We have

heard the

through the record with their able assistance.

A notice was

learned counsel for available contesting parties and gone

A suit was filed by respondent No. 1/plaintiff for declaration that

the head-note of

the plaint. As per pleadings in

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN

(Appellate Jurisdiction)

he be declared owner of the suit plot fully described in

the plaint, plaintiff never appointed

Civil Petition No.3877 of2023

civil revision.

the suit was filed.

defendants as his attorney nor he transferred the suit property in their

favour through any document. The alleged transfer of property in favour

of defendants is wrong, without authority, forged, fictitious and due to

conspiracy of the defendants. Initially the suit was filed against

defendant Nos. 1 85 2. After filing of written statement by the defendants

of the suit, defendant No. 3 was also impleaded stating that through the

documents attached with the written statement plaintiff came to know

that property was transferred in favour of defendant No. 3, who

transferred in favour of other defendants. The suit was contested. The

learned trial court framed the issues and invited the parties to produce

their respective evidence. Both the parties produced their oral as well as

documentary evidence. Learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the

suit vide judgment and decree dated 12.11.2013. The appeal was

preferred by the plaintiff/respondent No.l against the judgment and

decree of dismissal of his suit. The learned first appellate court was

pleased to accept the appeal vide judgment and decree dated 9.10.2019

and decreed the suit. The learned High Court also agreed with the

findings recorded by the learned first appellate court and dismissed the

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the learned

revisional court has wrongly relied upon the judgment of this Court

which is absolutely not applicable to the facts of the case in hand and

therefore, the learned revisional court reached to a wrong conclusion.

States that initially defendant No.3 was not impleaded, in whose favour

attorney of the plaintiff transferred the plot, from whom

petitioner/defendant No.l purchased the said plot. After the said

purchase, a house was constructed and during that period no objection

was raised by the plaintiff and after completion of his house dishonestly

Civil Petition No.3877 of2023

power of

Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 supported the judgment

passed by the appellate court as well as revisional court whereas

learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 5 has supported the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and

supported the judgment passed by the trial court.

Despite the fact that as per pleadings of the plaintiff himself after

eyAmining the documents in the office of City Development and

Municipal Department, he came to know about the power of attorney

and the transfer documents. He did not implead defendant No. 3 as the

series of the facts suggest that defendant No. 2 was attorney of the

plaintiff-respondent and he transferred the suit plot in favour of

defendant No. 3 through registered Sale Deed and thereafter, defendant

No. 1 purchased the said plot from defendant No. 3. Plaintiff has not

specifically challenged any of the above said documents. He has

generally denied the appointment of the attorney and further execution

of sale deeds by his attorney. For challenging a document we are clear

in our mind that there must be specific pleadings. In the instant case as

the plaintiff has stated that he never appointed anyone as his attorney,

meaning thereby that he is denying whole of the document i.e.

attorney on his behalf in favour of defendant No. 2 which includes that

he never signed or thumb marked the document, he never appeared

before the Registrar for registration of the said document. In that

eventuality his case is that no such registered document exists on his

behalf in the registration book kept under the Registration Act whereas

we have noticed that as PW-1 a Record Keeper from Sub-Registrar office

i.e. Registry Moharrir was produced by the plaintiff-respondent himself

who brought the record of registration of document No. 1984 dated

28.4.2007 a power of attorney by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.2

and a true and correct copy of said document got exhibited as

Civil Petition No.3877 of2023

produced before the Court.

were

Exh.PWl/1. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel

for defendant No.l to 3 and in the cross-examination he has stated that

it contains the signatures of executor of document as well as witnesses

which are correct and further stated that one of the witnesses is Rizwan

Dawood whose father’s name is Dawood Khan. Further stated that

nothing of the sort that power of attorney was subsequently cancelled

moved for cancellation of the same had been

by the plaintiff upon crossno request was made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff to permit

him to cross-examine the witness, refers Article 134 of the Qanun-eShahadat Order, 1984 that the person who produced the record cannot

be cross-examined. We are afraid that in the instant case the plaintiff

to produce the record as well as got

or any application was

When questioned to the learned counsel for plaintiff/respondent

No.l that when the said witness was produced by the plaintiff himself

of the said document as

has produced this witness as

exhibited in his statement copy of the said power of attorney as

Exh.PW-1/1 and further not raised any objection that learned counsel

for respondent Nos.l to 3 cross-examined the said witness. It is

admitted that the document, power of attorney which was challenged

through the suit, the record of registration was got summoned by the

plaintiff himself and the copy thereof was got exhibited as Exh.PW-1/1

and he got exhibited the Photostat copy

Exh.PW-1/1 being a registered document when original record was also

before the Court, the presumptions attached to the said document

fully attached to the said document and further that when the plaintiff

himself got exhibited the copy of the registered power of attorney as

Exh.PW-1/1 and further that when the learned counsel for defendant

Nos.l to 3 cross-examined the said witness and no objection was raised

examination of the said witness and fu

Civil Petition No.3877 of2023

by the plaintiff himself. In these circumstances, one of the witnesses

who is real brother of the plaintiff, non-production of the said witness is

not defective in the light of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order,

1984.

In the instant case we are clear in our mind that plaintiff-

that he did not appoint defendant No. 2

failed

sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1/the petitioner arises. Plaintiff

failed to plead and produce evidence that why he has not raised any

respondent who has not specifically challenged the execution and

registration of power of attorney in his pleadings when his case is that

he has seen said document in the office of City Development and

Exh.PWl/1 rather he himself proved the existence of registered power

of attorney by him in favour of defendant No. 2, no question of any

illegality in the transfer of the suit plot by his attorney in favour of

defendant No.3 and then transfer of suit plot through another registered

petitioner before this Court. When plaintiff-respondent failed to prove

as his general attorney and

Municipal Department, further he himself produced the copy of said

document as Exh.PW-1/1 and failed to discharge initial onus of

to rebut the presumptions attached with the document

negation of the registration of the document, it was very easy and

simple for the plaintiff to get his signatures and thumb impression

upon the impugned document compared with his sample signatures

and thumb impressions but he has not opted to initiate this legal

process. In these circumstances, when plaintiff failed to discharge

initial onus, no question of shifting of onus upon the vendee/defendant

or Attorney who has fully supported that he being validly constituted

attorney of the plaintiff, sold the plot to defendant No. 3 who was

initially not made party to the suit and was subsequently made party

and further defendant No. 3 sold the plot to defendant No. 1 the

10.

court dismissing the suit will hold the field.

In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned trial

accordance with the record.

by plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 2 proved, plaintiff

having the right to challenge the suit document through filing a suit for

cancellation of document under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act,

Islamabad

09 May 2024.

Mazhar Javed Bhatti

APPROVED FOR REPORTING.

was if at all

court dismissing the suit are in

Resultantly, we allow this petition, convert it into an appeal and accept

the same while setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned

revisional court as well as first appellate court and that of learned trial

Civil Petition No.3877 of2023

the

house

construction

regard

with

objection

petitioner/defendant No.l upon the suit plot.

We are further of the view that when registered power of attorney

1877 and not a suit for declaration filed under section 42 of the Act.

10.

court dismissing the suit will hold the field.

In these circumstances, the findings recorded by the learned trial

accordance with the record.

by plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 2 proved, plaintiff

having the right to challenge the suit document through filing a suit for

cancellation of document under section 39 of the Specific Relief Act,

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.