Written statement and witnesses | Witnesses and counterclaims The witnesses said that the money was given to the Patwari before the verbal death at the petitioner's house in the presence of witnesses, but this was not written in the counterclaim. The court held that All evidence must be consistent with the counterclaim; Evidence presented without a written statement cannot be admitted
 |
| Witnesses and counterclaims The witnesses said that the money was given to the Patwari before the verbal death at the petitioner's house in the presence of witnesses, but this was not written in the counterclaim. The court held that All evidence must be consistent with the counterclaim; Evidence presented without a written statement cannot be admitted |
مقدمہ ایک نابینا اور معمر خاتون، راجاں بی بی، کے زمین فروخت کے الزام سے متعلق ہے، جس میں انہوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ زمین کا کوئی زبانی سودا نہ کیا گیا تھا اور نہ ہی انہیں اس کی قیمت وصول ہوئی۔ درخواست گزار کے مطابق ان کے انگوٹھوں کے نشان ایک زرعی پاس بُک کے لیے حاصل کیے گئے تھے، لیکن بعد میں انہیں دھوکہ دہی سے زمین فروخت کے لیے استعمال کیا گیا۔
اہم نکات:
1. درخواست گزار کی حالت:
راجاں بی بی نابینا اور 70 سے 75 سال کی عمر کی تھیں۔
عدالت میں یہ ثابت ہوا کہ وہ معذور تھیں اور کسی آزاد مشورے کے بغیر زمین کی فروخت میں شامل نہیں ہو سکتی تھیں۔
2. دھوکہ دہی کا الزام:
مدعا علیہان نے زرعی پاس بُک کے بہانے ان کے انگوٹھے کے نشانات حاصل کیے۔
انگوٹھے کے نشان خالی کاغذات پر لیے گئے تھے، جو بعد میں زمین فروخت کے لیے استعمال کیے گئے۔
3. مدعا علیہان کے دلائل:
انہوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ زمین کی فروخت زبانی معاہدے کے تحت ہوئی اور رقم راجاں بی بی کے بیٹے کو دی گئی، لیکن اس حوالے سے کوئی ٹھوس ثبوت فراہم نہیں کیا گیا۔
مدعا علیہان کے گواہوں کے بیانات میں تضاد پایا گیا، اور انہوں نے بیٹے کو بطور گواہ پیش نہیں کیا۔
4. عدالت کا مشاہدہ:
عدالت نے پایا کہ مدعا علیہان کے شواہد ان کے دعوے کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے ناکافی تھے۔
نابینا خاتون کے ساتھ کیے گئے معاہدے کی سچائی ثابت کرنے کے لیے غیر معمولی احتیاط کی ضرورت تھی، جس کی کمی واضح طور پر نظر آئی۔
عدالتی اصول:
خواتین، خاص طور پر نابینا یا پردہ نشین خواتین کے ساتھ ہونے والے معاملات میں، گواہان کی موجودگی اور آزاد مشورے کی موجودگی لازمی ہے۔
تمام شواہد کو تحریری دعویٰ کے مطابق ہونا چاہیے؛ تحریری بیان کے بغیر پیش کردہ شواہد کو تسلیم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
نتیجہ:
یہ کیس مدعا علیہان کے خلاف ثابت ہوا کیونکہ وہ زمین کی فروخت اور معاہدے کی حقیقت کو قابل اعتبار ثبوتوں سے ثابت کرنے میں ناکام رہے۔
Stereo.HCJDA-38
JUDGMENT SHEET
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Rajan
v.
Amjad Ali and others
J U D G M E N T
Date of Hearing
10.12.2021
Petitioner by
Muhammad Ijrar Haider, Advocate
Respondents by
Mr. Aamir Shafiq Ch., Advocate
Rasaal Hasan Syed, J. The petitioner in this civil
revision has impugned judgment and decree dated 01.9.2014
of the learned Addl. District Judge, Chunian in terms
whereof appeal was allowed, the judgment and decree of the
trial court dated 01.11.2012 was set aside, and suit of the
petitioner was dismissed.
2.
Petitioner instituted a suit for declaration to challenge
mutation No. 2338 dated 04.3.2003 as also rapt roznamcha
waqiati No. 251 dated 31.1.2003 claiming that the same were
fictitious, forged
and
procured by fraud and
misrepresentation and that she being blind, female and a
septuagenarian, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were cosharers in the joint property, illegally and collusively,
attempted to deprive her of property through an alleged
mutation of oral sale; though in point of fact she had never
agreed to sell the land nor sold the same or ever appeared
before the tehsildar or receive any consideration and that the
whole process was completed by collusion, fraud and
forgery and that, being so, the impugned mutation was
inoperative against her rights and liable to be annulled. The
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-2
suit was resisted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who denied the
allegations. Issues were framed, evidence was recorded and
ultimately the suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge
vide judgment and decree dated 01.11.2012. In appeal
preferred by contesting respondents, the learned Addl.
District Judge set aside judgment of trial court and dismissed
the suit of petitioner vide judgment dated 01.9.2014 which is
now subject-matter of consideration before this Court.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
learned Addl. District Judge completely misread the
evidence, misapplied the law and illegally ignored that it was
a case of fraud committed against a blind old lady, that
evidence on record proved beyond doubt that she had never
entered into any transaction of sale, no receipt or
acknowledgement was adduced to prove the alleged payment
of consideration and that the testimonies of witnesses
produced by the respondents were materially discrepant,
unworthy of any credence on the face of it and that the
grounds that prevailed upon the learned Civil Judge for
granting decree in the suit were illegally ignored and that the
learned Addl. District Judge committed serious error of law
and jurisdiction in reversing the findings of fact that were
based on correct analysis of evidence on record. The learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contrariwise
supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the
appellate court correctly scrutinized the evidence and that
there was no misreading of record, the transaction of sale
was duly proved and findings of the learned Civil Judge
being erroneous were rightly interfered with in appeal.
4.
Points raised pro and contra have been examined in
the light of documents annexed with the present revision
petition which comprise pleadings of parties, oral and
documentary evidence as also the judgments of the courts
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-3
below. Perusal thereof reveals that the petitioner Rajan Bibi
in her suit claimed that she was owner of land measuring 04
kanals situated at Mauza Khokhar Ashraf, Chunian,
respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Amjad Ali and Asghar Ali
respectively, were joint-owners in the khata; respondent No.
1 approached her and stated that he had to apply for some
fertilizer loan and that she being a co-sharer in the land, her
thumb-impression will be required for obtaining Agricultural
Passbook and that on this false pretense she was taken to
patwari where her thumb-impressions were obtained by
claiming that the same were required for completing of
process of issuance of Agricultural Passbook for the fertilizer
loan and that this was also what the patwari had explained to
her; and that a few days before the filing of suit her son
Rasheed Ahmad informed that he had been told by the
respondents that they allegedly purchased share of the
petitioner’s land and an inquiry was made from the patwari
consequent to which it transpired that the respondent Nos. 1
and 2 had fraudulently obtained the thumb-impression of the
petitioner on the pretense of obtaining Agricultural Passbook
and that were misused and fraudulently transformed into an
alleged rapt of oral sale in conspiracy with the patwari
though she had never entered into any oral agreement of sale
with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 nor had ever any intention to
sell her share of land and never settled any transaction of sale
or receive any consideration and that she neither appeared
before the revenue officer/tehsildar for recording statement
for attestation of alleged mutation of oral sale nor ever made
any statement before the tehsildar or acknowledged any such
non-existent bargain; and that the entire process was
completed fraudulently in conspiracy with the revenue staff.
5.
In support of her case she appeared as PW-1 and
reiterated the facts she had stated in the plaint. As against the
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-4
petitioner, respondents produced Javaid Saeed Patwari Halqa
as DW-1 who produced copy of mutation No. 2338, Parat
Sarkar; Muhammad Sarwar, ex-Patwari appeared as DW-2
who had entered rapt No. 251 dated 21.1.2003; Falak Sher
as DW-3; Muhammad Mushtaq as DW-4; Amjad Ali
defendant/respondent No. 1 appeared as DW-5 and
Muhammad Ali Kamyana, ex-Revenue Officer Chunian who
allegedly attested the disputed mutation was produced as
DW-6.
6.
It is discernible from the stance taken in the pleadings
that the petitioner’s case was that she had never agreed to
sell her land nor ever received any amount of consideration
and that she never appeared before the revenue officer for
the attestation of mutation of oral sale of land and that
everything was completely fraudulently done. Foundation of
her plea was that she was taken to the patwari on the pretext
of issuance of an Agricultural Passbook which respondent
No. 1 intended to obtain for the purposes of some fertilizer
loan, and this was what the patwari had explained to her and
that she never acknowledged or admitted before the patwari
about any oral sale of land. She had pleaded to be a blind
lady aged between 70 and 75 years. Respondent No. 1,
Amjad Ali, in his statement as DW-5 admitted in crossexamination that he had admitted in the written statement
that the petitioner was a blind lady. Not only this, the
respondents’ witness Falk Sher, DW-3, admitted it to be
correct in cross-examination that Rajan Bibi was indeed
blind. Muhammad Mushtaq, DW-4, another witness of
respondents too admitted in the first line of his crossexamination that Rajan Bibi was a blind lady. Interestingly
the patwari of the relevant time, who had entered rapt
roznamcha waqiati, Exh.D-2, when appeared in evidence as
DW-2, stated that before him a “healthy lady” had appeared.
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-5
Same is the case with the tehsildar who appeared as DW-6
and stated that he did not recollect as to whether the lady
who appeared for attestation of mutation as Rajan Bibi, was
blind or not nor could remember as to whether her son or
brother accompanied her at the time or not. Rather he
claimed that Rajan Bibi who appeared before him was in full
command of her senses. It was never the case of respondents
that the petitioner was not blind at the time of mutation or
that she had lost her eyesight subsequently. They in fact
admitted in evidence that she was blind. Being so, the
statements of the patwari and the tehsildar, were sufficient to
create reasonable doubt as to the identity of the lady who had
appeared as “Rajan Bibi” before them for the purposes of
completing the process of attestation of mutation.
7.
It was a case in which the existence of transaction of
sale and payment of consideration were outright denied by
the lady who was a septuagenarian and blind. The moment
she appeared before the court and made her statement on
oath that she had not transacted for the sale of her property
nor did she receive any valuable consideration and
specifically denied having ever appeared before the
concerned functionaries for attestation of mutation; heavy
onus shifted upon the respondents to prove, not only the
claim of genuineness of mutation proceedings but also the
original transaction of sale itself. In this context it is
observed that the respondents did not allege in the written
statement that any meeting was held for the settlement of
bargain in the house of the petitioner before the entry in rapt
roznamcha waqiati. Their defense was that they had
purchased the property and that the lady had allegedly
appeared before the revenue functionaries i.e., patwari and
tehsildar, and allegedly admitted transaction of sale and also
receipt of consideration. In the evidence, a new narrative was
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-6
introduced that before the entry in rapt roznamcha waqiati,
the respondents along with the witnesses had allegedly
visited the house of petitioner at Mauza Kot Umer Wattoo
where the alleged payment of Rs.1,00,000/- was made in the
presence of Rasheed son of the petitioner and that the cash
was counted by Rasheed whereafter the petitioner
accompanied for reporting the transaction in roznamcha
waqiati. This version was repeated by the witnesses though
with certain discrepancies in respect of date or the day of the
alleged visit to the house of petitioner; as respondent claimed
that on the next day rapt was made but the witnesses stated
that after two to three days the rapt was recorded. Be that as
it may, the entire evidence as to the alleged visit to the house
of the petitioner and making of alleged payment of
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rasheed son of the petitioner are
inadmissible for the reason that there was no foundation
thereof in the pleadings. It is settled rule that material facts
shall be mentioned in the pleadings and that evidence could
be led to amplify the same. In a case where a material fact is
not pleaded in the written statement neither any evidence
could be allowed nor, if recorded, shall it be admissible in
law. In “Government of West Pakistan (Now Punjab)
through Collector, Bahawalpur v. Haji Muhammad” (PLD
1976 SC 469) it was observed to the effect that if a plea of
fact is not pleaded no case can be founded on it. In “Mst.
Jannat Bibi v. Sher Muhammad and others” (1988 SCMR
1696) it was observed to the effect that in civil proceedings a
party is not permitted to deviate from their pleadings, nor
could the court set up a different plea for a party and decide
the suit on that basis let alone at the appellate stage. In
“Sadar Ud Din (since deceased) through L.R.s v. Sultan
Khan (since deceased) through L.R.s and others” (2021
SCMR 642) it was ruled to the effect that in the absence of
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-7
plea in the plaint evidence could not be considered on the
basis of the principle laid down by the Court that the parties
were required to lead evidence in consonance with their
pleadings and no evidence in support of a plea that had not
been taken in the pleadings, could be led and that the parties
were required to plead facts necessary to seek relief and to
prove them through evidence of unimpeachable character.
8.
As noted supra, in the instant case the respondents did
not plead in the written statement that there was any meeting
for settlement of pre-conditions or that payment was made in
the house of petitioner a day prior to the reporting of
transaction in the roznamcha waqiati nor was there any
assertion that the respondents, along with their witnesses,
had gone to the house of petitioner at Kot Umer Wattoo and
that the sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid to
Rasheed son of the petitioner who counted the amount.
Instead, the plea was that the petitioner in the presence of
witnesses before the patwari declared oral sale and for the
incorporation of rapt No. 251 dated 31.1.2003 and that she
allegedly affixed her thumb-impression on the roznamcha
waqiati. There was no mention of any meeting prior to the
entry of rapt roznamcha waqiati in the written statement and
the entire narrative was introduced for the first time in the
evidence. Obviously, such evidence being extraneous to the
facts averred in the written statement and being without
laying of any foundation in the written statement, could not
be deemed to be admissible in law even if it was brought on
record, in view of the rule settled in the precedents
mentioned supra.
9.
As regards the other evidence, the respondents’ claim
was that they had purchased the property through oral sale in
consideration of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was imperative for them to
allege in the pleadings the time, date and place where the
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-8
terms and conditions for the alleged oral sale were proposed
and accepted and the bargain was struck as well as the names
of the witnesses in whose presence this happened. In the
peculiar circumstances of this case where the respondents
were claiming a deal with a blind old lady, it was also
necessary for them to ensure that she was duly represented
and had the independent advice of some near one and dear
one like son, brother, husband or father if alive, who should
have been present at the time of transaction to make a blind
old lady fully and reliably comprehend the alleged
arrangement of oral sale as well as to ensure the security of
cash if paid at that time. Before it could be convincingly
claimed that she had thumb-marked the document, it was
necessary for the respondents to prove that she entered the
deal with her free-will and volition. The petitioner, as stated
above, in her plaint and also in her evidence on oath,
categorically deposed that she never entered into any oral
agreement of sale, never wanted to sell her share in the jointproperty and that she did not receive a single penny from
respondent Nos.1 and 2 nor had she ever appeared before the
tehsildar to record her statement to acknowledge and confirm
any oral sale and that her thumb-impressions in the
roznamcha waqiati, etc. were obtained by fraud and
misrepresentation and in conspiracy with patwari halqa. In
her cross-examination she had disclosed that she had three
sons who were all young, two of them were married while
the third one was unmarried and that she was living with her
younger son Muhammad Munir who was matriculate and a
salesman. She reiterated that she did not receive any amount
nor ever made any oral transaction of sale of her share in the
property. As against this, the respondents in their evidence
claimed that the alleged payment was made to Rasheed son
of the petitioner who allegedly counted the cash and
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-9
confirmed the amount; but Rasheed was not produced or
summoned as a witness or a court-witness in support of their
stance taken for the first time in evidence. Strangely enough,
the learned Addl. District Judge assumed that it was the
petitioner who was under an obligation to produce Rasheed
as her witness little appreciating that the onus to prove the
transaction of oral sale was upon respondent Nos.1 and 2
who were duty-bound to produce all the persons as their
witnesses who in their understanding had performed any role
in the completion of the alleged transaction. Since it was the
respondents’ case in evidence that the payment was made
through Rasheed, son of Rajan Bibi, it was their duty to
produce him as their own witness or as a court-witness and
his non-production obviously triggered serious adverse
inference against them.
10.
Another important aspect of the matter is that the
roznamcha waqiati is claimed to have been recorded on the
oral information of petitioner Rajan Bibi who was allegedly
identified by Falak Sher and Mushtaq; but names and thumbimpressions of Falak Sher and Mushtaq appear below the
report and, thereafter, the names and thumb-impressions of
Rajan Bibi and Amjad (the alleged vendee) occur that
imparts an impression as if the rapt was prepared on the
alleged oral information of the witnesses. The names of the
informer, vendor and vendee as a matter of practice had to
appear immediately after the completion of writing of rapt.
In the instant case, however, the arrangement of signatures is
inconsistent with the narrative of Rajan Bibi as informer of
her own transaction as the signatures and thumb-impressions
of the alleged witnesses are affixed before those of the
alleged informer Mst. Rajan Bibi or the alleged vendee
Amjad instead of occurring below the names and thumbimpression of the alleged informer, vendee and vendor.
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-10
Another fact pointed out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner appears to be of some significance. The pert
patwar of mutation No. 2338 dated 04.3.2003 as also pert
sarkar of the said mutation were produced as Exh.P-2 and
Exh.D-1. The document in this case comprised two pages;
but the thumb-impressions of the parties and their witnesses
do not appear immediately below the proceedings of the
alleged mutation dated 04.3.2003. Rather they are shown in
part “bay” (tittima shijra) at second page of the document
while all the columns in part “aleph” of tittima field-book are
blank. This obviously supports the plea of the petitioner that
the thumb-impression of the blind lady were obtained on
blank paper as in ordinary course they ought to have got
reflected on the page where the proceedings were completed
by the revenue officer.
11.
As regards the statement of DW-6, tehsildar/revenue
officer of the relevant time who allegedly attested the
mutation, curiously, the original record of mutation was
never produced before him which fact was admitted by him;
yet he had the guts to record his deposition on the basis of
photocopy of a copy of document Exh.D-1. He admitted in
cross-examination that the original mutation record was not
before him and that he did not remember as to whether the
lumberdar was present or not at the time of attestation of
mutation. He claimed that he did not recollect if Rajan Bibi
was blind or not nor could he recollect as to whether she was
accompanied by any of her sons or brother but claimed that
the lady who appeared before him was in her full senses. In
cross-examination he further stated that he could not say if
there was any daura (tour) of the revenue officer between
21.1.2003 to 06.4.2003. He volunteered that on 18.2.2003 he
had a tour of the village but none of the parties appeared
before him, and he could not recollect if he had checked the
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-11
roznamcha waqiati or not before attesting the mutation.
Scrutiny of his statement clearly reveals that there is no
indication of the fact that the lady who appeared as Rajan
Bibi before him was a blind lady or was aged between 70
and 75 years and that she was not accompanied by any male
member of the family like son or brother.
12.
It has been consistently observed that the revenue
officers shall be very cautious in the matter of sanctioning of
mutations wherein the transaction is claimed from a lady.
Particularly when she is old and blind. It has repeatedly
observed that where the alleged vendor is a blind person,
extraordinary care is expected of the public functionaries, i.e.
revenue officers in this case, to ensure the authenticity of the
transaction by making necessary inquiry that the vendor was
accompanied by some close male relative and that
independent advice was available and the person concerned
was made to understand the transaction which they
understood with its clear impact. Reference can be made
“Ghulam Shabbir and another v. Sikandar Shah and another
(1999 CLC 576), “Mst. Asia Khatoon v. Khan Shareen”
(2015 YLR 435) and “Rana Liaqat Ali and 10 others v. Mst.
Azizan and 5 others” (2016 CLC 736). In “Phul Peer Shah
v. Hafeez Fatima” (2016 SCMR 1225) it was observed to
the effect that in cases where the transaction is claimed to be
by a pardanashin lady the onus to prove the transaction is
upon the beneficiary who has to establish free of all
suspicions and doubt that the transaction was legitimately
made and that certain mandatory conditions shall be
complied with and fulfilled through transparent manner and
that pre-conditions to be followed will be that the lady was
fully cognizant of the nature of the transaction and its
consequences; that she had independent advice from a
reliable source and person of trust to fully understand the
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-12
proposed commitment; that witnesses to the transaction are
close relatives or fully acquainted with the lady without any
conflict of interest with her; that sale consideration was duly
paid and received by her in the same manner; and that the
very nature of transaction is explained to her in the language
she understands fully well and she is apprised of the contents
of the documents involved.
13.
In the instant case the evidence on record including
the evidence of respondents proved beyond doubt that the
petitioner was a blind lady. In the first instance the
respondents admitted in cross-examination that Mauza Kot
Umer Wattoo where the petitioner resided was at a distance
of four to five miles from the patwar khana and that
respondent No.1 escorted the blind lady on a bicycle there
and after completing the process, he dropped her back at her
house. It is odd that the lady was living with her son but he
was not taken along with her which casts cloud of serious
doubt upon the genuineness of the transaction. The entire
narrative appears to elicit suspicion. Nor is there any
creditworthy explanation as to why none of the three sons of
petitioner (who were young and out of them two were
married) was associated in the entire dealing, particularly,
when it was not the case of respondents that they were not on
speaking terms or had any bitter relations with the mother.
DW-3 claimed that the lady was accompanied by
Muhammad Rasheed to the office of patwari though this is
not the case of either the respondents or any of their
witnesses. It also cannot be overlooked that if the son of the
petitioner, with whom she was living, was matriculate as to
why a receipt could not be executed as acknowledgement of
the payment. The respondents did not claim the execution of
any such receipt as acknowledgement of the full sale price
which in itself raises serious doubt as to the plea of oral sale
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-13
and also the genuineness of the narrative of the respondents.
As regards the plea of being in possession, the learned Civil
Judge rightly observed that the respondents did not produce
the khasra girdawari of the relevant khewat nor any record to
prove the change of entries with regard to the column of
possession. Be that as it may, the petitioner was owner of 04
kanals in joint land and being a co-sharer, every co-sharer is
deemed to be in possession of the property and if any cosharer holds the same it inures for the benefit of all the other
co-sharers who will be deemed to be in joint-possession
unless a case of complete ouster was claimed and proved
which is obviously not so in the present instance.
14.
In view of the factors noted supra, the respondents
miserably failed to prove the oral sale or the lawful
sanctioning of any mutation of sale. Rather the
circumstances proved that it was a case of clear-cut fraud
which was played upon an old and blind woman. The
learned Civil Judge, in this backdrop, rightly observed that
the evidence on record revealed that the respondents
admitted the petitioner to be a blind lady. The woman who
appeared before the patwari was not claimed to be blind
rather she was claimed to be a healthy lady, who of course
was not the petitioner and that the revenue officer also did
not remember if the lady who appeared before him was blind
or not and that the rule was that if an infirm and disabled
person appeared regarding such transaction, the public
functionaries had to show responsibility in looking after their
affairs in the public interest and should be extremely
cautious if a blind woman was produced before the patwari
or before tehsildar without her close relatives and they were
expected to be extra careful; but in this case neither the
patwari halqa nor the tehsildar mentioned the factum of
blindness of the lady in the rapt roznamcha or at the time of
C.R. No.3542 of 2014
Page-14
attestation of mutation and candidly admitted that the lady
who appeared before them was of sound health and was not
a blind woman and all these circumstances proved that the
mutation and rapt roznamcha waqiati were result of fraud.
The learned Addl. District conveniently ignored the
reasoning recorded by the learned Civil Judge and also the
facts noted supra and, therefore, the impugned judgment
suffers from serious error of law and jurisdiction and
misreading and non-reading of evidence on record which is
also otherwise contrary to the settled rules approved by the
superior courts. The findings recorded by the learned Addl.
District Judge being based on perfunctory reasoning and on
illegal and erroneous analysis of evidence cannot sustain and
are, accordingly, set aside.
15.
Resultantly, the revision petition is accepted, the
impugned judgment dated 01.9.2014 of learned Addl.
District Judge, Chunian is set aside and by restoring the
judgment and decree dated 01.11.2012 of the learned Civil
Judge, Chunian, the suit of the petitioner shall remain
decreed.
(Rasaal Hasan Syed)
Judge
Approved for Reportin
Comments
Post a Comment