LAL BUX vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khairpur O

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

LAL BUX VS GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khairpur O. IX, R. 6---Ex-parte proceedings---Duty of Court---Scope---Appellants filed suit for declaration and injunction on basis of inquiry report before Trial Court, which proceeded ex-parte against respondents---Trial Court dismissed the suit and Appellate Court also dismissed appeal thereagainst---Held, that the case in hand of the appellants was hit by the provisions of O. II, R. 2, of the C.P.C., as earlier, a suit was also filed by the same parties wherein the plaint was rejected under O. VII, R. 11 of the C.P.C, as being barred in terms of S. 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 hence, the second suit was not maintainable---Said findings had been set aside through impugned judgment by deciding the same in favor of the appellants, whereas, no appeal had been preferred by the respondents, hence, the said issue did not need to be addressed by High Court---Respondents had failed to lead any evidence before Trial Court, however, they had filed their written statement which was a matter of record and the entire contention of the appellants had been controverted and denied---Respondents failed to lead any evidence nor cross-examined the witnesses of the appellants, nor had led any arguments in the case---Where ex-parte proceedings are carried on, additional burden and duty was cast upon the Court to ensure that the ends of justice are met and the interest of the party who has not been able to defend its case for any reason, whatsoever, should be protected and must be dealt with in accordance with law---Court is required to examine the evidence as well as material brought on record and to see that the contention so raised is supported by evidence and supporting material or not---Trial Court had to see whether the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to the relief being claimed and if yes, then to what extent---Suit could not be decreed as prayed in such matters---Trial Court and Appellate Court were fully justified in dismissing the suit of the appellants as no case was made out either on facts or in law---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 44 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case LAL BUX VS GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khairpur S.41---Revenue record---Mutation entry---Scope---Mutation entry in Revenue Record can neither create nor extinguish title to property as these are only maintained for fiscal purposes---Right to title or ownership of any property depends entirely on the title, source of acquisition of the right while an entry in the records of rights is not conclusive evidence of the right of ownership---Mere mutation does not confer any right in any property on anyone and the mutation entry raises a rebuttable presumption in favour of person in whose favour the same is made---In the present case the appellants (plaintiffs) failed to discharge the burden which in the given facts lay on them heavily as their only piece of evidence and document was some inquiry report of the year 1921 which they could not prove satisfactorily---Appeal was dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PLD 44 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHBookmark this Case LAL BUX VS GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khairpur art. 85---admissibility of public document---Scope---Inquiry report not a title document---appellants' (plaintiff) counsel contented that since no evidence was led on behalf of the respondents, whereas, reliance was placed on public documents by the plaintiffs, their suit could not have been dismissed---Validity---Said argument was misconceived and was not tenable in the given facts and circumstances of case in hand---Public documents, were admissible in terms of art.85 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 and need not to be proved strictly; however it was not always true in each and every case---Onus was on the plaintiffs to prove their case first---Nothing was available on record to substantiate the claim of plaintiffs, except an inquiry report purportedly held back in 1921; even prior to creation of Pakistan---Subsequent entries and the entire record being claimed as public document was based on that inquiry, which by itself was not a title document, nor had been proved in any manner---Claim of the appellants was denied on the ground that it was Government land belonging to the Forest department and had been encroached upon by influential persons on the basis of forged and managed documents---In such a situation protection under art. 85 of the Order, 1984, appeared to be a far-fetched proposition and apparently could not come to rescue of the appellants---appeal was dismissed.

LAL BUX vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Executive District Officer (Revenue), Khairpur O — 2023 PLD 44 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD