MOHAMMAD HANIF vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI O — 2022 YLR 76 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MOHAMMAD HANIF VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI O. VI, R. 17---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 9---Pleadings, amendment of---Respondents' suit for possession was decreed by Trial Court---First Information Report was also launched by respondent regarding illegal dispossession---Petitioners filed revision petition---Respondent filed application for amendment of the plaint during the pendency of civil revision which was allowed by revisional Court---Revision petition was dismissed---Validity---None of the marginal witnesses of the alleged agreements to sell entered appearance in the witness box which was basic requirement of art. 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---as per Jamabandi, suit property was owned by Government of the Punjab and the revenue record depicted that the petitioners, and not the respondents, were recorded as illegal occupants thereof---No other revenue document was there to suggest that respondent ever remained in possession---Respondent took stance in the application that while institution the suit, he appended jamabandi regarding suit property in a specific khasra---Said assertion was not established through any document---Respondent had instituted suit regarding property falling in another khasra and categorically deposed the same while being cross-examined, he could not summarily be allowed to amend the plaint to incorporate a different description of suit property i.e., one falling in specific khasra---Courts below had given weightage to FIR lodged by the respondent ignoring altogether other documentary evidence including the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners---Except the said FIR, nothing had been brought on record by the respondent in support of his stance regarding his possession or dispossession by the petitioner---Plaintiff/respondent had to stand on his own legs to prove his case---Revisional court had erred in allowing the amendment of the plaint followed by the amendment in the decree, particularly when the respondent had failed to establish basic ingredients of S.9 of the Specific Relief act, 1877---High Court allowed the Constitutional petition and directed the office to transmit the copy of the present judgment to the relevant authorities for safeguarding the interest of the Government qua the suit property.

MOHAMMAD HANIF vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VEHARI O — 2022 YLR 76 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 YLR