ILYAS AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT arts — 2023 CLC 138 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.

ILYAS AHMAD VS ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT arts. 76, 77 & 129(g)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XIII, R.4---Subsequent/bona fide purchaser---Petitioner purchased suit property from seller/occupant having ownership based on acquisition amount/zar-e-malkana paid---Respondents filed suit for declaration claiming ownership on basis of decision of Tehsildar in favour of their predecessors and mutation incorporated in revenue record by order of revenue hierarchy---Respondent's suit was concurrently decreed---Petitioner contended that no right could be claimed on basis of order lacking legitimacy as the same was never implemented, and otherwise details whereof were not found in the revenue record and no change therein was made on its basis; that consideration amount was paid/accepted and record was accordingly changed, registering ownership rights of the legal heirs of seller/occupant and the same were transferred to the petitioner; that petitioner had acquired rights with consideration and in good faith; that original copy of order was not produced; that uncertified copy of the said order placed on record was inadmissible and could not be referred/relied for determining rights claimed thereunder---Respondents contended that no objection as to inadmissibility was raised during the trial and that petitioner was aware of the rights of the respondents who were in possession of the suit land---Decisions of both the Courts below fortified reasoning by referring to the observations recorded in orders of the revenue hierarchy---Original/certified copy of order was not filed---Respondent claim was not proved through primary or secondary evidence---Photocopy of the said order was produced without making any effort to summon the official record for producing original order---Fact that such original was lost in order to legitimize the production of secondary evidence, was not established---Said order, despite being relevant, was inadmissibleas the same was placed on record without fulfilling essential requirements---Order was not recorded in the revenue record which amounted to a secret well-kept for over 80 years and the same was not produced in original without fulfilling the conditions prescribed for producing secondary evidence---Respondents withheld their best evidence---Just because the said order was repeatedly referred in the orders would not absolve respondents from their obligation of satisfying the test of admissibility---Revision petition was allowed and the case was remanded to the appellate Court to decide the appeal afresh.

ILYAS AHMAD vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SIALKOT arts — 2023 CLC 138 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 CLC