Under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. Illustration (g) attached to this Article is quite relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand in which the court may draw adverse inference or presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it
یہ کیس سپریم کورٹ آف پاکستان میں دائر کیا گیا تھا جس میں اپیل نمبر 908 of 2015 شامل ہے۔ اس کیس میں اپیل کنندگان نے لاہور ہائی کورٹ، راولپنڈی بینچ کے 15 اپریل 2015 کے فیصلے کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی تھی۔ لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے اپیل کنندگان کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا تھا۔
**مختصر حقائق:**
اپیل کنندگان نے ایک مقدمہ دائر کیا تھا جس میں انہوں نے موٹریشن کی موجودہ اندراجات کو منسوخ کرنے کی درخواست کی تھی۔ ان کا کہنا تھا کہ یہ اندراجات دھوکہ دہی کے ذریعے کیے گئے تھے۔ مقدمہ کی سماعت کے بعد، مقدمہ مسترد کر دیا گیا، جس کے بعد اپیل بھی مسترد کر دی گئی اور پھر ہائی کورٹ نے بھی اپیل کو مسترد کر دیا۔
**قانونی سوال:**
اس کیس میں بنیادی سوال یہ تھا کہ آیا ایک پاردہ نشین یا غیر پڑھی لکھی عورت کے معاملے میں بوجھ ثبوت منتقل ہوتا ہے اور آیا عدالتوں نے اس پہلو کو مدنظر رکھا ہے یا نہیں۔
**فیصلہ:**
عدالت نے پایا کہ تمام عدالتوں نے صحیح طریقے سے تمام شواہد کا جائزہ لیا۔ اپیل کنندگان نے یہ ثابت کرنے میں ناکامیابی کا سامنا کیا کہ موٹریشن کی دستاویزات جعلی تھیں یا ان پر دستخط دھوکہ دہی سے لیے گئے تھے۔ عدالت نے اس بات کو بھی مدنظر رکھا کہ اپیل کنندگان نے گواہوں کو پیش کرنے کی کوشش نہیں کی جنہوں نے اصل معاملے کے بارے میں بہتر معلومات فراہم کی ہوسکتی تھیں۔
عدالت نے کہا کہ اگر پاردہ نشین یا غیر پڑھی لکھی عورت کے معاملے میں کوئی چیلنج ہے تو یہ ثابت کرنا فائدے دار فریق کی ذمہ داری ہوتی ہے کہ معاہدہ مکمل طور پر سمجھایا گیا تھا اور کسی بھی دھوکہ دہی یا زبردستی کے بغیر کیا گیا تھا۔
**نتیجہ:**
عدالت نے فیصلہ سنایا کہ اپیل کنندگان نے درست طور پر اپنے مقدمے کو ثابت نہیں کیا اور عدالتوں نے تمام قانونی اصولوں کے مطابق فیصلہ دیا ہے، جس کی وجہ سے اپیل کو مسترد کر دیا گیا۔
Tagline : 1. Under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. Illustration (g) attached to this Article is quite relevant to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand in which the court may draw adverse inference or presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it.
2. According to Order 6 Rule 1 C.P.C, the term “pleadings” include the plaint and the written statement, whereas Order 6 Rule 2 C.P.C accentuates, that every pleading shall contain a statement in concise form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence. It is also a well settled exposition of law that no party can lead evidence beyond the pleadings.
3. The denotation and import of phrase “Pardanashin lady” depicts a woman who heeded stringent and unyielding canons and ethics of seclusion and privacy and according to the customs may object to show up in a public office or have no communication except behind the screen with any male person save as near relatives.
4. In our Holy Quran also, the believing women are commanded to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad) and lower their gaze and guard their chastity and not to reveal their adornments except what normally appears.
5. In case of a document executed by a pardanashin lady, the burden of proof is on the party who depends on such a deed to persuade the Court that it has been read over to her and she had not only understood it but also received independent and disinterested advice in the matter. This benchmark is equally applicable to an illiterate and ignorant woman who may not be a pardanashin lady.
6. The obvious underlying principle is to protect and save a weak and helpless woman from danger and risk of an unfair deal, thenceforth, it is to be ensured by the court in tandem, whether the alleged deal or transaction was effected by her free will or through coercion/duress or emotional blackmailing or whether it was simply aimed to deprive her right or interest in the property or divest her due share in the inheritance by male members of her family because of their ignorance, inexperience of business matters and social conditions are not able to understand the nature of business transactions.
7. In order to handle the issue of exemption of pardanashin lady from personal appearance in Courts, the Civil Procedure Code endows with specific provision with logical solution and forward-thinking to deal with the issue in an appropriate manner which is perhaps not applied objectively by the Civil Courts despite availability of a well-defined remedy with immemorial solution under Section 132 of C.P.C.
8. The customs and manners advocated under Section 132 C.P.C, characterizes the customs and manners predominating presently and not the customs and manners which were prevalent in antiquity which have now become obsolete. The personal appearance refers to in-person attendance in the Court and if such plea is taken the Court should not compel a pardanashin lady to appear in court for recording her evidence.
9. The privilege of exemption in court appearance to a pardanashin lady as provided under Section 132 of C.P.C is to be read with Section 75 and Order 26 Rule 1 C.P.C wherein the Court may appoint commission to record the evidence of pardanashin lady as a matter of right, provided such plea was taken in the pleadings and the court is obligated to determine first whether the exemption claimed is permissible within the purview of Section 132 CPC.
10. In this advanced era of computer age, the information technology is progressing and growing manifold with rapidity. The evidence after proper identification can also be recorded through video link if the facility is available in the court premises or alternately via video call to ascertain whether the pardanashin lady endorsed her signature or thump impression by free will or she was compelled to do this under duress, coercion, fraud, emotional blackmailing or misguidance or to deprive her right or interest in the property or divesting her share in the inheritance
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
MR. JUSTICE MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR
CIVIL APPEAL NO.908 OF 2015
(Against the judgment dated 15.04.2015
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench,
Rawalpindi in C.R.799/2005)
Muhammad Naeem Khan & another
…Appellants
VERSUS
Muqadas Khan (decd) through LRs and others
…Respondents
For the Appellants:
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, ASC/AOR
For Respondents (1-6)
Mr. Munir Piracha Sr. ASC
For Respondents: (7-19)
Ex-Parte
Date of Hearing:
26.11.2021
Judgment
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J. This Civil Appeal is directed against
the judgment passed by learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench
on 15.04.2015 in Civil Revision No.799 of 2005 whereby the civil
revision application filed by the appellants was dismissed.
2. The short-lived facts of the case are that the appellants filed a Suit
for cancellation of Mutation Entries No.1041, 1042, 1044 & 1046 for
the land measuring 1 Kanal 2 Marlas, situated at village Said Khel
Nartopa. According to the appellants the aforesaid mutations entries
were recorded on 19.05.1997 as a result of fraud. The respondents
contested the suit, the trial court settled the issues, evidence of the
parties was recorded and ultimately, the suit was dismissed. The
appellants preferred Appeal which was dismissed, thereafter, the Civil
Revision was filed which was also dismissed by the learned High
Court.
3. Leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 11.09.2015 to
examine inter alia, “whether in the circumstances where one of the
executant of a document was a parda-nasheen and illiterate lady, the
burden of proof had not shifted upon the beneficiary of such transaction
CA.No.908/15
-2-
and whether such aspect of the case was duly taken into consideration
by the three fora below while passing their respective judgments
against the petitioners”.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants argued that Muqadas Khan
(defendant No.1 in suit) was sole beneficiary, who was required to
prove his case but the learned trial court shifted the burden on the
appellants. It was further contended that the learned Courts below
failed to appreciate and decide the real controversy between the
parties. It was further averred that the appellant No.2 (pardanashin
lady) never appeared before the Mutation sanctioning Authority and no
effort was made by the trial court for the verification of her thumb
impression through any Forensic Laboratory. He next argued that
there was a huge difference of market value of the properties due to
which exchange of land was not possible but this aspect was not
considered by the courts below, therefore the impugned judgments are
based on misreading and non-reading of evidence.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 to 6 argued that no
plea of pardanashin lady was ever taken in any court below and even
in the memo of appeal filed in this Court; hence no such plea can be
agitated in the arguments without any support of pleadings. He
further argued that all courts below diligently considered the evidence
led by the parties and no defect was found. The suit filed for
cancellation of the mutation entries was rightly dismissed and the
judgment and decree of trial court were also affirmed in appeal as well
as in the Revision application before the learned High Court.
6. Heard the arguments. The record reflects that all the courts below
properly considered the entire evidence led by the parties in the trial
court. Neither the allegation that Muqadas Khan in collusion with
Halqa Patwari fraudulently obtained the signatures of appellant No.1
on a blank paper was substantiated by any convincing or cogent
evidence nor it was proved that the document of mutation dated
19.05.1997 was forged. The appellants also failed to prove that they
never appeared before the concerned office and authority for the
mutation of the land in question. Throughout the proceedings the
respondents maintained that the appellants got the mutation attested
by their free will and also appeared before the Revenue Authority. The
thumb impression, signatures along with identity card numbers are
CA.No.908/15
-3-
also mentioned in mutation documents. Nothing alleged that the
thumb impression of Mst.Shamim was obtained through fraud or
under duress or coercion or that she failed to understand the very
nature of document or deal. The learned counsel for the appellants
argued that the learned trial court failed to verify the thumb
impression of Mst.Shamim from any Forensic Science Laboratory but
the fact remains that Mst. Shamim failed to appear for recording her
evidence which was the best evidence to lead with regard to veracity
and genuineness of her own thumb impression but no effort was made
to produce her. On the other hand, if the appellants were of the view
that her thumb impression should have been verified by some forensic
lab then it was the responsibility of the appellants to apply and move
proper application in the trial court at the relevant time which they
failed to do. Where a party keeps hold of the witnesses, the
presumption would be that if such witnesses were produced, their
testimony must have against him, therefore adverse inference of
withholding evidence goes against the party who failed to call the
concerned person engaged in the transaction who was in a better
position to give firsthand and straight narrative of the matter in
controversy. According to Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order
1984, the court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks
likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of
natural events, human conduct and public and private business in
their relation to the facts of the particular case. Illustration (g)
attached to this Article is quite relevant to the facts and circumstances
of the case in hand in which the court may draw adverse inference or
presumption that evidence which could be and is not produced would,
if produced, be unfavorable to the person who withholds it. No
misreading or non-reading of evidence or any other defect or error was
pointed out in the impugned judgments which may warrant
interference by this court.
7. We have cautiously scanned the record and found out that the
appellants have not taken any plea in the plaint, memo of appeal or
Revision Application filed in the High Court that Mst.Shamim was a
pardanashin or illiterate lady nor has any such plea been taken in the
instant Civil Appeal, except that the mutation was recorded
fraudulently. Neither she appeared in the trial court for recording her
evidence nor claimed any exemption from her personal appearance in
CA.No.908/15
-4-
the court being a pardanashin lady but when we confronted the
learned counsel for the appellants as to why she failed to appear in
court for evidence, he simply replied that she is pardanashin lady
hence she did not record her evidence in court. According to Order 6
Rule 1 C.P.C, the term “pleadings” include the plaint and the written
statement, whereas Order 6 Rule 2 C.P.C accentuates, that every
pleading shall contain a statement in concise form of the material facts
on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence. It is also a
well settled exposition of law that no party can lead evidence beyond
the pleadings. Though no plea of “Pardanashin lady” was raised in the
memo of appeal in this Court also but the leave to appeal was granted
on the point which has direct nexus with the ideology and genus of
pardanashin or illiterate lady, hence we would like to take up this
issue as well.
8. The denotation and import of phrase “Pardanashin lady” depicts a
woman who heeded stringent and unyielding canons and ethics of
seclusion and privacy and according to the customs may object to
show up in a public office or have no communication except behind
the screen with any male person save as near relatives. In our Holy
Quran also, the believing women are commanded to draw their cloaks
close round them (when they go abroad) and lower their gaze and
guard their chastity and not to reveal their adornments except what
normally appears. Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful. (Ref: Surah AlAhzab, Verse No.59 and Surah An-Noor, Verse No.31). If any such
plea is taken then it is a time-honored parameter that in case of a
document executed by a pardanashin lady, the burden of proof is on
the party who depends on such a deed to persuade and convince the
Court that it has been read over and explicated to her and she had not
only understood it but also received independent and disinterested
advice in the matter. The aforesaid parameter and benchmark is
equally applicable to an illiterate and ignorant woman who may not be
a pardanashin lady. If authenticity or trueness of a transaction
entered into by a pardanashin lady is disputed or claimed to have been
secured on the basis of fraud or misrepresentation, then onus would
lie on the beneficiary of the transaction to prove his good faith and the
court has to consider whether it was done with freewill or under
duress and has to assess further for an affirmative proof whether the
CA.No.908/15
-5-
said document was read over to the pardanashin or illiterate lady in
her native language for her proper understanding.
9. The obvious underlying principle is to protect and save a weak and
helpless woman from danger and risk of an unfair deal, thenceforth, it
is to be ensured by the court in tandem, whether the alleged deal or
transaction was effected by her free will or through coercion/duress or
emotional blackmailing or whether it was simply aimed to deprive her
right or interest in the property or divest her due share in the
inheritance by male members of her family. The survey and analysis of
some judicial precedents rendered by our courts and pronouncement
of courts from Indian jurisdiction have in fact woven a cloak of
protection for pardanashin ladies, who because of their ignorance,
inexperience of business matters and social conditions are not able to
understand the nature of business transactions. The Privy Council
defined a Pardanashin lady as a woman of rank living in seclusion but
the law regarding pardanashin ladies equally applies to illiterate and
ignorant women. The question is whether a lady is pardanashin or not
is always a question of fact which should be specifically pleaded and
proved by some cogent evidence and is not to be used as weapon or
shield to defend the lawsuit under the garb of this plea at original or
appellate stage. The status and eminence of Pardanashin lady have
been discussed in detail in the following dictums:-
1. Ghulam Ali and others versus Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi
(PLD 1990 SC 1). This court held that no doubt in our urban
society woman is not only asserting her rights but also is believed
in some quarters as able to protect herself and her rights. In other
social sectors she still is highly dependent upon the good-will of
men around her and in the rural areas due to the reasons, which
would be presently noted, the conditions under which she is living
in this 20th Century, can in the present context, be compared
with those prevailing before the advent of Islam. It was further
held that the position of woman and her disabilities regarding
protection of her own rights was recognized consistently, without
reference to Islamic injunctions, purely as interpretation of the
provisions of Contract Act (Section 16 and others), even by the
Privy Council when dealing with the contracts by and acts of
Parda Nasheen ladies.
2. Janat Bibi versus Sikandar Ali and others. (PLD 1990
Supreme Court 642). It was held that the question whether a
lady is a pardahnashin lady is a question of fact (See Bank of
Khulna Ltd. v. Jyoti Prokash Mitra and others AIR 1940 Privy
Council 147). It is also well settled that the burden of proof in
respect of a document purported to have been executed by a
pardahnashin woman affecting her right or interest in the
immovable property is on the person claiming the right or interest
under the document. If she is illiterate, it must have been read
over to her. This court also quoted the observation of Sir George
CA.No.908/15
-6-
Lowndes rendered in the case of (Valluri) Ramanamma v. Marina
Virana AIR 1931 Privy Council 100 that "the law as to disposition
of property by pardanashin ladies has been discussed by the
Board on many occasions. It is for the person claiming the benefit
of any such disposition to establish affirmatively that it was
substantially understood by the lady and was really her free and
intelligent act. If she is illiterate, it must have been read over to
her; if the terms are intricate they must have been adequately
explained, and her degree of intelligence will be a material factor;
but independent legal advice is not in itself essential.
3. Syed Mansoor Ahmad v. Mst. Maqbool Begum and others.
(1990 SCMR 1259). The court held that a document adversely
affecting the interest of a woman in favour of a person standing in
relationship of active confidence requires strict proof of execution
and availability of independent advice to such executant.
4. Muhammad Yaqoob v. Mst. Sardaran Bibi and others.
(PLD 2020 Supreme Court 338). It was held that illiterate
village women are to be treated at par with Pardanasheen ladies
and where a transaction involves anything against their
apparent interest, it must be established that independent,
impartial and objective advice was available to them and the
nature, scope, implication and ramifications of the transaction
they were entering into was fully explained to them and they
understood the same.
5. Rangbi Bewa v. Md. Abed Ali & others. (Supreme Court of
Bangladesh) (1987 7 BLD 319). It was held that the court when
called upon to deal with a deed executed by a pardanashin lady
must satisfy itself upon the evidence first, that the deed was
actually executed by her or by some person duly authorized by her
with a full understanding of what she was about to do; secondly
that she had full knowledge of the nature and effect of the
transaction into which she is said to have entered; and thirdly
that she had independent disinterested advice in the matter.
6. Phul Peer Shah versus Hafeeza Fatima (2016 SCMR 1225).
It was held that in a case of such transaction with old,
illiterate/rustic village 'Parda Nasheen' lady onus to prove the
transaction being legitimate and free from all suspicions and
doubts surrounding it, can only be dispelled if the lady divesting
herself of a valuable property, the following mandatory conditions
are complied with and fulfilled through transparent manner and
through evidence of a high degree. Amongst this condition, the
pre-dominantly followed are:- (i) that the lady was fully cognizant
and was aware of the nature of the transaction and its probable
consequences; (ii) that she was having independent advice from a
reliable source/person of trust to fully understand the nature of
the transaction; (iii) that witnesses to the transaction are such,
who are close relatives or fully acquainted with the lady and were
having no conflict of interest with her; (iv) that the sale
consideration was duly paid and received by the lady in the same
manner and (v) that the very nature of transaction is explained to
her in the language she understands fully and she was apprised of
the contents of the deed/receipt, as the case may be.
7. Irshad Hussain v. Ijaz Hussain and 9 others (1994 PLD SC
326). This court held that whether a lady is a Pardanashin is a
question of fact. The burden of proof that any document purported
to have been executed by a Pardanashin lady affecting her right in
an immovable property was substantially understood by the lady
and was her voluntary, intelligent, free and conscious act, is upon
CA.No.908/15
-7-
the person chiming any right under such deed. This rule has been
extended to illiterate ignorant lady whether she is Pardanashin or
not. This rule of wisdom and caution thrown round the
Pardanashin, illiterate and ignorant women is to protect them
from exploitation, duress, fraud and misrepresentation. But where
the lady involved is an educated lady not observing Parda capable
of understanding transactions and has executed the deed on full
and proper understanding of its implications, the principle
governing Pardanashin, ignorant and illiterate women will hardly
be attracted.
8. Mst. Farid-un-nisa. v. Munshi Mukhtar Ahmad and another
(A.I.R. 1925 Privy Council 204). The court held that the case of
an illiterate pardanashin lady, denuding herself of a large
proportion of her property without professional or independent
advice, is one on which there is much authority. The real point is
that the disposition made must be substantially understood and
must really be the mental act, as its execution is the physical act,
of the person who makes it. They must satisfy the Court that the
deed has been explained to and understood by the party thus
under disability, either before execution, or after it under
circumstances which establish adoption of it with full knowledge
and comprehension.
9. Mst. Kharbuja Kuer. v. Jangbahadur Rai and others (AIR
1963 SC 1203). The court held that the rule evolved for the
protection of pardahnashin ladies shall not be confused with other
doctrines, such as fraud, duress and actual undue influence,
which apply to all persons whether they be pardanashin ladies or
not. In the first place, the lady was a pardanashin lady, and the
law throws round her a special cloak of protection. It demands
that the burden of proof shall in such a case rest, not with those
who attack, but with those who found upon the deed, and the
proof must go so far as to show affirmatively and conclusively that
the deed was not only executed by but was explained to, and was
really understood by the grantor.
10. The aforesaid verdicts laid down the glorious rules of wisdom,
thoughtfulness and attentiveness for protecting the pardanashin or
illiterate lady from exploitation, duress, fraud, emotional blackmailing
and misrepresentation in the male dominant society which has a
conceptual label to characterize the unequal power relations between
men as a group and women as a group.
11. The function of the court is to do substantial justice between the
parties after providing ample opportunity of hearing which is one of
the significant components and virtues of the fair trial. The well-known
Latin maxim Ubi jus, ibi remedium, means where there is a right, there
is a remedy which is a universal and incontrovertible rule. In order to
handle the issue of exemption of pardanashin lady from personal
appearance in Courts, the Civil Procedure Code, endows with specific
provision with logical solution and forward-thinking to deal with the
issue in an appropriate manner which is perhaps not applied
CA.No.908/15
-8-
objectively by the Civil Courts despite availability of a well-defined
remedy and immemorial solution for alleviation and assuagement of
such particular class of women. At this juncture we would like to refer
to Section 132 of Civil Procedure Code which is for ease of convenience
reproduced as under:
132. Exemption of certain women from personal appearance.
(1) Women who, according to the customs and manners of the
country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public shall be
exempt from personal appearance in Court.
(2) Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to exempt such
women from arrest in execution of civil process in any case in
which the arrest of women is not prohibited by this Code.
[N.B. Section 133 CP.C represents the exemption of other persons who are
exempted by the Provincial Government by Notification. Where any person is
exempted, he will also be examined by commission on payment of cost of
that commission].
12. The customs and manners advocated under Section 132 C.P.C,
characterizes the customs and manners predominating presently and
not the customs and manners which were prevalent in antiquity which
have now become obsolete. The personal appearance refers to inperson attendance in the Court and if such plea is taken the Court
should not compel a pardanashin lady to appear in court for recording
her evidence. The rules framed in the Civil Procedure Code are for the
advancement of justice and should not as far as possible, be allowed to
operate so as to defeat the ends of justice. In the same backdrop,
certain powers are vested in court to handle the disability and
incapacity of person who is exempted or could not appear in the court
for the purposes of recording evidence or is not represented through
an attorney. In such a case, the court may issue commission to
examine the witness. For the ease of reference, the relevant provisions
i.e. Section 75 and Order 26 Rule 1 C.P.C are recapitulated as under:-
75. Power of Court to issue commissions. Subject to such
conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may
issue a commission –
(a) to examine any person ;
(b) to make a local investigation;
(c) to examine or adjust accounts ; or
(d) to make a partition
CA.No.908/15
-9-
Order XXVI Rule 1, C.P.C.
1. Cases in which Court may issue commission to examine
witness. Any court may in any suit issue a commission for the
examination on interrogatories or otherwise of any person
resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction who is
exempted under this Code from attending the Court or who is
from sickness or infirmity unable to attend it.
13. The privilege of exemption in court appearance to a pardanashin
lady as provided under Section 132 of C.P.C is to be read with Section
75 and Order 26 Rule 1 C.P.C wherein the Court may appoint
commission to record the evidence of pardanashin lady. In unison,
under Order X, Rule 1-A C.P.C., the Court may adopt any lawful
procedure not inconsistent with the provisions of this Code to (i)
conduct preliminary proceedings and issue orders for expediting
processing of the case; (ii) issue, with the consent of parties,
commission to examine witnesses, admit documents and take other
steps for the purposes of trial; (iii) adopt, with the consent of parties,
any alternative method of dispute resolution including mediation,
conciliation or any such other means.
14. If a woman falls within the exemption clause as cited under
Section 132 C.P.C, the court has to issue commission as the matter of
course or right, provided such plea was taken in the pleadings and the
court is obligated to determine first whether the exemption claimed is
permissible within the grounds and purview of Section 132 CPC or
not, which is meant for particular class of women, so that the
privilege/exemption should not be misused but allowed only in
genuine cases. However, once it is proved that applicant is a
pardanashin lady, she cannot be compelled to appear in the court and
in such eventuality, the court may appoint the commission to record
evidence in the interest of justice at any convenient place; even
samples of thumb impression can be drawn on commission to verify
with the documents in issue through any forensic lab if deemed fit by
the Court for deciding the lis in just manner. In the families where
ladies observe strict parda, it is considered by them most objectionable
to appear in public even with their faces covered and to respect such
sentiments and values, the legislature has provided a remedy under
Section 132 C.P.C. We have also noticed that by dint of Code of Civil
CA.No.908/15
-10-
Procedure (Amendment) Act 2020, (Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary,
Part I, No.F.9(5)/2020-Legis, dated 21.2.2020), extended to territory of
Islamabad, certain new provisions have been incorporated for ensuring
expeditious disposal of civil cases. According to newly inserted Section
26C in C.P.C, the court is obligated to direct the recording of evidence
through Commission immediately upon framing of issues and filing of
the list of witnesses and according to Sub-section 10 of Section 26C,
the Commission shall record the evidence and proceedings thereof in
written and audio and video recording which is quite a unique and
distinctive feature in our judicial system that will obviously help and
assist the courts to consider intrinsic and deep-seated value of
evidence more cautiously for just and proper decision of the lawsuits.
A mandatory provision has also entrenched and embedded in Subsection 12 of Section 26C that the High Court shall frame rules for the
purposes of recording of evidence through Commission.
15. In this advanced era of computer age, the information technology
is progressing and growing manifold with rapidity. Even under Article
164 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, in such cases as the Court
may consider appropriate, the Court may allow to produce any
evidence that may have become available because of modern devices or
techniques. This Article further articulates that even conviction can be
recorded provided that conviction on the basis of modern devices or
techniques may be lawful. In order to warrant the uninterrupted
discharge of judicial functions, even in the Covid 19 pandemic, many
Courts in our country made provisions by means of modern
technologies to conduct hearings by video link and in same pattern,
the evidence after proper identification can also be recorded through
video link if the facility is available in the court premises or alternately
via video call to ascertain whether the pardanashin lady endorsed her
signature or thump impression by free will or she was compelled to do
this under duress, coercion, fraud, emotional blackmailing or
misguidance or to deprive her right or interest in the property or
divesting her share in the inheritance. The law must not become
stagnant or archaic while society moves forward. It must be accessible,
intelligible and must change with the times responding to the realism
of modern day life which requires transfiguration of new ways and
means and invention of up to date mechanisms for the purpose of
providing access to justice with the aim to cut down the volume of
CA.No.908/15
-11-
litigation and pendency of cases. If any plea of pardanashin is properly
taken then the court may on its own motion appoint the Commission
for recording the evidence to adjudicate whether the deal or
transaction of any property entered into in her name was by her free
will or through duress, fraud or emotional blackmailing of male
members of family with the sole intention to deprive her right and
interest.
16. As we have already held that no plea of pardanashin or illiterate
lady was taken by the appellants before any forum, albeit, the above
discussion was only made to address the leave granting order. On
merits, we do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned
judgment. The appeal is dismissed with no orders as to cost.
Judge
Judge
ISLAMABAD
26th November, 2021
Khalid
Approved for reporting
Comments
Post a Comment