QAMAR-UL-ISLAM vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector Attock Ss

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

QAMAR-UL-ISLAM VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector Attock Ss. 42 & 54---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 74 & 76---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for declaration and injunction---Secondary evidence, proof of---Procedure---Judgments at variance---Suit filed by petitioner / plaintiff was decreed in his favour by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same---Validity---Petitioner / plaintiff claimed ownership of suit property through his father, as one of his legal heirs---Suit was filed on 08-01-2008 i.e. fifty-eight (58) years after execution and registration of alleged mutation in favour of respondent/Tehsil Municipal Administration---During his lifetime, father of petitioner / plaintiff never asserted any right or claim over the property on the basis of alleged sale deed---Petitioner / plaintiff did not inherit any asserted or recognized right from his predecessor-in-interest, therefore, he lacked locus standi to file civil revision---Petitioner / plaintiff adopted an unconventional method by summoning officials of revenue department to testify existence of alleged registered sale deed---Such document constituted secondary evidence within the meaning of Art. 74 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Record was silent as to whether requisite permission for production of secondary evidence was sought or granted under Art. 76 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Official witnesses deposed that a copy of registered sale deed dated 03-01-1956 was available on record but the witness had never stated that it was a genuine document---In absence of such compliance, the document could not be treated as admissible evidence---Petitioner / plaintiff nor his father took any steps to assert or reclaim possession thereafter and had failed to refer to any application or proceeding in that regard---As per revenue record for the year 2003-04, respondent/Tehsil Municipal Administration had been lawful owner in possession of suit property since its transfer---Each and every issue was discussed in detail and reasons were assigned by Lower Appellate Court for reversing findings of Trial Court---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere as petitioner / plaintiff failed to point out any jurisdictional error, illegality, material irregularity, or misreading/non-reading of evidence in the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

QAMAR-UL-ISLAM vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector Attock Ss — 2025 CLC 1456 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC