Abdul Sattar Shah vs Syed Mubarak Shah O — 2024 MLD 780 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.

Abdul Sattar Shah VS Syed Mubarak Shah O. I, R. 10---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration regarding inheritance share---Revenue entries , challenging of---allegation of Fraud---Impleadment of Revenue Officers/Officials---Necessary party---Scope---appellants /defendants, during the pendency of appeal, moved an application under O. 1, R. 10 Civil Procedure Code, for impleading Revenue Officer(s), which was dismissed---Petitioners /defendants assailed the order passed by the appellate Court---Contention of the petitioners was that the mutations-in-question were challenged on the ground of fraud, so the Revenue authorities (Provincial Government, Tehsildar, etc.) were the necessary parties and that the same parties might be impleaded at any stage of the suit---Validity ---Record revealed that the plaintiffs/ respondents filed the suit for declaration in the year 2009 with the allegation that the petitioners /defendants got sanctioned the inheritance mutation in the year 1943 while omitting their ( plaintiffs') name in the list of the legal hiers and all these proceedings were completed while concealing the facts---There was no specific allegation against any of the Revenue Officers that any of the Revenue Officer or Official was part of that conspiracy of omitting the name of the petitioners at the relevant time i.e. at the time of sanctioning of the mutation---Nowhere in the plaint any specific allegation was raised against any Revenue Officer or Official ---Revenue officer by name can be impleaded in the suit if the Court feels it necessary and when there is a specific allegation against him for being the part of some illegal act otherwise the matters which are required to be decided on the basis of documents and the other related/relevant oral evidence, the Officials/Officers of Revenue Department are not necessary to be impleaded in such proposition, as the relevant record can be requisitioned and analyzed by the Court---Other aspect of said proposition was that the suit was filed in the year 2009 and the petitioners filed the written statement in the year 2010 without raising any objection and even in the evidence there was nothing about the fact that Revenue Officers/Officials were necessary party to the lis, therefore, to that extent the appellate Court had rightly decided the fate of the application as it was filed after the remarkable delay as the appeal was filed in the year 2013 and said application under O. 1, R. 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was filed in the year 2020 after a lapse of about 07 years for which there was no justification---No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court dismissing application moved by the appellants ---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 MLD 780 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Abdul Sattar Shah VS Syed Mubarak Shah O. XIV, R. 5 ---Specific Relief act (I of 1877) , S. 42---Suit for declaration regarding inheritance share---Framing of additional issues---Scope---appellants /defendants, during the pendency of appeal, moved an application for framing of the additional issues , which was dismissed---Petitioners (appellants /defendants) assailed the said order passed by the appellate Court---Contention of the petitioners was that it was duty of the court to frame the issues in view of the concerned documents (compromise/ relinquishment deed) as without proper settlement of the issues, the controversy between the parties could not be resolved---Validity---although the Court was bound to frame the issues in view of the pleadings of the parties, however, in the written statement submitted by the petitioners / defendants there is nothing mentioned about the compromise deed allegedly having been made in the year 1995---So far as relinquishment deed allegedly having been made in 1964 was concerned that had been covered in the relevant issue--Petitioner had submitted the evidence regarding the relinquishment deed of the year 1964 duly exhibited by the petitioners / defendants and the same had been considered and discussed by the Trial Court while deciding the fate of the suit under the relevant issue, so to fill in the lacunas, no party could be allowed to seek any favour---Issues were framed in the year 2010, neither the petitioners objected on any issue nor submitted any application before the Trial Court for resettlement of the issues or to frame any additional issue in view of the pleadings and the compromise deed of the year 1965 was even not mentioned in the written statement by the petitioners---Trial Court framed the issues and the main controversy was highlighted through the issues; the parties tendered their evidence regarding the same and the relinquishment deed was tendered in the evidence and the same was discussed by the Court at length---Even the petitioners did not tender the compromise deed mentioned in the evidence---Nobody could be allowed to fill in the lacunas after 07 years of a decision passed by the Civil Court---application had been tendered without mentioning any reason that why document was not mentioned in the written statement and also was not tendered in the evidence---Said document was a private document which could not be allowed to be placed on record at later stage and when the same was not mentioned in the written statement the court was not bound to frame the issue regarding the same---appellate Court had rightly disallowed the application for framing of the additional issues---No illegality or irregularity was noticed in the impugned order passed by the appellate Court dismissing application moved by the appellants ---Revision was dismissed , in circumstances .

Abdul Sattar Shah vs Syed Mubarak Shah O — 2024 MLD 780 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 MLD