2024 C L C 1437
[Balochistan]
Before Abdul Hameed Baloch, J
ABDUL NAFAY----Petitioner
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN C&W DEPARTMENT through Superintending Engineering Project Circle and another----Respondents
Civil Revision No.415 of 2011, decided on 26th April of 2022.
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss. 42 & 54---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.120---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 79 & 117---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for declaration and injunction---Revenue entries, correction of---Limitation---New documents---Petitioner / plaintiff claimed his ownership over suit property and had assailed mutations in question---Trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit---Validity---Suit land was mutated in the name of a person in the year 1980 and petitioner / plaintiff alleged that he purchased property in year 1980 but did not bother to transfer the land to his name in revenue record---Petitioner / plaintiff filed suit for correction of revenue record in the year 1995---Limitation period provided under Art.120 of Limitation Act, 1908, for correction of mutation entries was six years---Relief which petitioner / plaintiff was entitled was subject to law of limitation---Every litigant is to be vigilant in claiming his / her right within the prescribed period of limitation---Petitioner / plaintiff was not vigilant to pursue his right---There was no evidence on record that petitioner / plaintiff was not in knowledge of mutation entries---Petitioner / plaintiff filed suit after fifteen years of alleged transaction, which suit was barred by time---Documents which were neither pleaded nor part of pleading could not be allowed to be introduced during revisional jurisdiction---High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below as petitioner / plaintiff failed to point out any illegality and irregularity---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.
Rozi Khan v. Nasir 1997 SCMR 1849; Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore v. Gulbat Khan 1996 SCMR 230; Manzoor Ahmad v. Government of Balochistan 1995 SCMR 221; Asif Mowjee v. Zaheer Abbas 2015 CLC 877; Azam Ali (Late) through legal heirs v. Alam Sher 2019 YLR 401; Bakhtiar v. Nasrullah 2015 CLC 395; Muhammad Iqbal's case 2015 SCMR 21 and Moiz Abbas v. Mrs. Latifa SCMR 74 rel.
(b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 79---Document not attested by witnesses---Effect---Document which is required under law to be attested, such document cannot be used as evidence until two attesting witnesses have been called for the purpose of proving its execution---Provision of Art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, is mandatory in nature and non-compliance renders the document inadmissible in evidence without producing two witnesses, if alive---Court cannot rely on such document---Mere production of marginal witnesses is not enough, the witnesses in their deposition have to show signing of the document in their presence.
Sheikh Muhammad Muneer v. Mst. Feezan PLD 2021 SC 538 rel.
(c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---
----Art. 117---Proof---Onus to prove---Plaintiff must prove the case with cogent, trustworthy and consistent evidence and cannot take advantage of shortcomings of defendant's side.
Mushtaq-ul-Haq Aarifin's case 2022 SCMR 55 rel.
Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani for Petitioner.
Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Additional Advocate General and Allauddin Kakar, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.
No comments:
Post a Comment