Production of Documents during trial accepted by High Court.

Production of Documents during trial accepted by High Court

عدالت نے زیرِ بحث دستاویزات کی پیشی کی درخواست منظور کر لی۔ اس کے نتیجے میں، نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا گیا اور درخواست گزاروں کی درخواست کو

فیصلہ:

عدالت نے زیرِ بحث دستاویزات کی پیشی کی درخواست منظور کر لی۔ اس کے نتیجے میں، نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو کالعدم قرار دے دیا گیا اور درخواست گزاروں کی درخواست کو قبول کر لیا گیا، جس کے تحت وراثتی انتقال نمبر 1744 مورخہ 7.5.1942 اور 1942-43 کا پیڈگری ٹیبل پیش کرنے کی اجازت دی گئی۔

تاہم، مدعیوں کو یہ حق دیا گیا کہ وہ ان دستاویزات کو چیلنج کر سکتے ہیں اور ان کی مستندیت کا جائزہ ٹرائل کورٹ ثبوت ریکارڈ کرنے کے بعد کرے گی۔ مزید برآں، عدالت نے ہدایت کی کہ مقدمے کا فیصلہ دو ماہ کے اندر مکمل کیا جائے، اور اس ہدایت پر دونوں فریقین کے وکلاء نے رضامندی ظاہر کی۔**فیصلہ:**

کیس کی کہانی:

پس منظر:

اس کیس کا تعلق ملکیت اور وراثت کے تنازعے سے ہے۔ مدعیوں نے دعویٰ کیا کہ مسٹ. مبارک بیگم اور لطیفان، جو برکھوڑار خان کی بیویاں تھیں اور بھارت میں تقسیم کے دوران وفات پا گئی تھیں، وہ اصل مالک ہیں۔ ان کے مطابق، وراثتی انتقال نمبر 1465 مورخہ 20.12.1974، جو تمام قانونی ورثاء کے حق میں جاری کیا گیا تھا، قانون اور حقیقت کے خلاف ہے اور اسے منسوخ کیا جانا چاہیے۔

مدعا علیہان کا موقف:

مدعا علیہان نے اس دعوے کی مخالفت کی اور کہا کہ مسٹ. مبارک بیگم اور لطیفان مکمل مالکان نہیں بلکہ محدود مالکان تھیں۔ انہوں نے اس وراثتی انتقال کو چیلنج کرنے کے لیے کچھ دستاویزات (وراثتی انتقال نمبر 1744 مورخہ 7.5.1942 اور پیڈگری ٹیبل 1942-43) پیش کرنے کی کوشش کی، جنہیں وہ اپنے کیس کی تائید کے لیے ضروری سمجھتے تھے۔

عدالتی کارروائی:

1. سول جج کا فیصلہ:

سول جج نے درخواست گزاروں کی درخواست کو مسترد کر دیا، جس میں انہوں نے کہا تھا کہ پیش کردہ دستاویزات کیس کی سماعت کے لیے ضروری نہیں ہیں۔

2. **ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج کا فیصلہ:*

* درخواست گزاروں نے سول جج کے فیصلے کے خلاف سول جج کے فیصلے کو چیلنج کرتے ہوئے ایک سول ریوژن دائر کی، جسے ایڈیشنل ڈسٹرکٹ جج نے بھی مسترد کر دیا۔

3. **ہائی کورٹ کا جائزہ:*

* لاہور ہائی کورٹ، بہاولپور بینچ نے دونوں نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلوں کا جائزہ لیا اور یہ فیصلہ کیا کہ دستاویزات کی پیشی کی درخواست مسترد کرنا درست تھا۔ عدالت نے وراثتی انتقال کی قانونی حیثیت اور مدعیوں کے ملکیت کے دعوے کو بھی قانونی طور پر درست پایا۔

نتیجہ:

عدالت نے نچلی عدالتوں کے فیصلے کو برقرار رکھا اور یہ فیصلہ سنایا کہ وراثتی انتقال اور پیش کردہ دستاویزات کے حوالے سے کوئی قانونی غلطی نہیں کی گئی۔

Must read judgement

DGMENT SHEET

LAHORE HIGH COURT, BAHAWALPUR BENCH,

BAHAWALPUR

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Writ Petition No. 995 of 2007

(Saeed Akhtar Khan through legal heirs etc. V. Raza Ahmed Khan etc.)

Date of hearing: 04.06.2015

Petitioners by: Moeen-ud-Din Qureshi, Advocate

Respondents by: Mr. Nadeem Iqbal Ch. and Rana

Rizwan Advocates.

Sadaqat Ali Khan, J.:

This

Writ

Petition No. 995 of 2007 has been filed by the

present petitioners/defendants against the order

dated 14.4.2007 passed by Additional District

Judge, Khanpur according to which civil revision

of the present petitioners was dismissed, filed by

them against the order dated 30.1.2006 passed

by Civil Judge, Khanpur according to which

application of the present petitioners under Order

XIII Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151 of CPC to

produce documents i.e. inheritance mutation No.

1744 dated 7.5.1942 and pedigree table

pertaining to years 1942-43 was dismissed.

The brief facts of the case are that

plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration

with the assertion that Mst. Mubarak Begum and

Latifan are owners in possession of the suit

property being widows of Barkhurdar Khan died

in India before partition and his inheritance

mutation No. 1465 dated 20.12.1974 in favour of

all the legal heirs is against law and facts and is

liable to be set-aside.

Present petitioners

being defendants

contested the suit by filing written statement and

submitted that Mst. Mubarak Begum and Latifan

widows of Barkhurdar Khan were not the sole

owners of the suit property rather were limited

owners of the suit property and the disputed

inheritance mutation No. 1465 pertaining to

Writ Petition No. 995 of 2007

Barkhurdar Khan last male owner of the suit

property mentioned above was rightly sanctioned

in favour of his all the legal heirs.

4. Learned trial court, out of the divergent

pleadings of the parties, framed the following

issues: -

“Issues:

1. Whether plaintiffs namely Mst. Mubarak

Begum and Mst. Latifan widows of

Barkhurdar Khan are full owners of the

suit properties as detailed in the

plaint?OPP

2. Whether late Mst. Aisha and Mst. Fatima

are sisters of Barkhurdar Khan?OPD

3. If issue No.1. proves in negative and

issue No.2 in positive, whether the suit

property was allotted to the two

plaintiffs as widows of Barkhurdar

Khan, if so respective shares of

contesting parties?OPP

4. Whether the plaintiffs have become the

owners of the suit properties through

adverse possession?OPP

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in

the present form?

6. Whether the suit is insufficiently and

wrongly stamped?

7. Whether the plaintiffs has no locus

standi for the suit?

8. Whether the plaintiffs suit is collusive

one with defendants No.1 to 3?

9. Whether the defendants No.1 to 3 are

necessary parties to the suit?

10. Whether defendant No. 4,5 are entitled

to the compensatory costs under section

35-A CPC?

11. Relief.

Evidence of the plaintiffs has been

recorded.

During the evidence of the defendants

present petitioners have moved an application for

seeking permission to produce documents i.e.

inheritance mutation No. 1744 dated 7.5.1942

pertaining to Barkhurdar Khan last male owner

of the suit property sanctioned in India before

partition in favour of Mst. Latifan alias Chooti and

Mst. Mubarak Begum widows of Barkhurdar

Writ Petition No. 995 of 2007

Khan being limited owners and pedigree table

pertaining to year 1942-43.

Application was contested by the present

respondents/plaintiffs and same was dismissed

by the trial court vide order dated 30.1.2006.

Civil Revision filed by the present

petitioners was also dismissed by Additional

District Judge, Khanpur vide order dated

14.4.2007 hence this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners

submitted that impugned orders of the courts

below are against law and facts and are liable to

be set-aside.

10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondents has vehemently opposed this writ

petition and supported the impugned orders of

the courts below.

11. I have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and perused the record.

12. Inheritance mutation No. 1465 pertaining to

Barkhurdar Khan last male owner of the suit

property was sanctioned on 20.12.1974 in favour

of (i) Mst. Rafiqan and Nusrat Begum (his

daughters) (ii) Mst. Mubarak Begum and Latifan

(his widows) and (iii) Mst. Fatima and Ayesha

(his sisters). Above mentioned mutation has been

challenged by Mst. Mubarak Begum and Latifan

widows of Barkhurdar Khan last male owner of

the suit property by filing instant suit with the

assertion that they are owners of the suit

property and remaining legal heirs mentioned

above have no concern with the suit property.

13. Suit has been contested by the present

petitioners by filing written statement with the

assertion that Mst. Mubarak Begum and Mst.

Latifan widows of Barkhurdar Khan last male

owner of the suit property were limited owners

and disputed inheritance mutation No. 1465

pertaining to Barkhurdar Khan deceased has

Writ Petition No. 995 of 2007

rightly been sanctioned in favour of all the legal

heirs of Barkhurdar Khan deceased.

14. After framing of the issues by the trial

court, plaintiffs have produced their evidence

whereas during evidence of the defendants

present petitioners have moved an application

under Order XIII Rule 1 & 2 read with section 151

CPC to produce documents i.e. inheritance

mutation No. 1744 dated 7.5.1942 pertaining to

Barkhurdar Khan last male owner of the suit

property and pedigree table for the years 1942-43

to prove that Mst. Mubarak Begum and Latifan

widows of Barkhurdar Khan last male owner of

the suit property were limited owners and

relation of the parties with Barkhurdar Khan

deceased.

15. I have perused these two documents with

the assistance of the learned counsel for the

parties. Both these mutations are public

documents. An application bearing No. 4929 has

been moved to obtain the attested copy of

inheritance mutation No. 1744 dated 7.5.1942

pertaining to Barkhurdar Khan deceased in

foreign country (India) on 10.3.2005 in the

concerned office and same was issued by the

concerned office on the same day. This document

bears relevant endorsement of the concerned

copying agency.

16. Admittedly, Barkhurdar Khan last male

owner of the suit property died in India before

partition. Likewise, an application bearing No.

4924 has been moved to obtain the attested copy

of the pedigree table of Barkhurdar Khan last

male owner of the suit property pertaining to

years 1942-43 on 10.3.2005 and on the same

day it was issued by concerned office. Both these

documents have been attested by Notary Public

District Hisar India with following endorsement: -

“certified that this copy has been

duly certified by the office pertaining

Writ Petition No. 995 of 2007

to legal custody of original as per

Indian Law dated 10.3.2005”

And received through registered post in

Pakistan on 14.3.2005.

17. Learned revisional court while dismissing

the civil revision of the present petitioners has

observed that both these documents have not

been attested by the Indian and Pakistani

Embassies. The relevant portion of the order is

hereby reproduced: -

“the case is fairly old one. Though

these documents may throw light on

the controversy between the parties

yet the fact remains that these have

not been got certified/attested by the

Indian and Pakistani Embassies to

exclude the possibility of forgery and

fabrication. Hence, on this sole

ground the revision petition merits

dismissal which is accordingly

dismissed with no order as to cost”.

18. The relevant Article 89 (5) of Qanun-eShahadat Order 1984 is hereby reproduced: -

“public documents of any other class in a

foreign country, by the original, or by a copy

certified by the legal keeper thereof with a

certificate under the seal of a notary public, or

of a Pakistan Counsel or diplomatic agent, that

the copy is duly certified by the officer having

the legal custody of the original, and upon

proof of the character of the document

according to the law of the foreign country”

19. Considering article 89 sub-clause 5 of

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, I am of the view

that it is not the only requirement of law that

certified copies of public documents should have

been certified under the seal of Pakistan Counsel

or diplomatic agent or a certificate under the seal

of Notary Public is sufficient. Both the documents

under discussion being public documents bear

seal of Notary Public mentioned above do not

require the seal of Pakistan Counsel or diplomatic

agent. Public documents in a foreign country or

certified copies thereof must have certificate

under the seal of Notary Public or of a Pakistan

Counsel or diplomatic agent and of not the both.

Writ Petition No. 995 of 2007

Both the documents under discussion are the

public documents, copies of which have been

obtained in accordance with law. Further, both

the documents have been attested by concerned

Notary Public with certificate that copies have

been certified by the officer having the legal

custody of the original.

20. The argument of the learned counsel for the

respondents that both the documents under

consideration have not been filed with the plaint

and application for production of the documents

moved at belated stage has no substance

because non-filing of the documents with plaint

has never been considered fatal in view of the

provisions of Order XIII Rule 2 CPC which

empowers the court to receive documentary

evidence during trial. Reliance is placed on case

Anwar Ahmad v. Mst. Nafis Bano through legal

heirs (2005 SCMR 152) in which Hon’ble

Supreme Court of Pakistan has observed at page

168 as under: -

“As far as non-filing of documents along with

plaint is concerned, it has never been

considered fatal in view of provisions of

Order XIII, rule 2, CPC which empowers the

Court to receive documentary evidence

during the trial”.

21. Even otherwise, these two documents were

not in the custody of the present petitioners rather

same being public documents were in the custody

of relevant office of Indian Government and copies

of which have been obtained on 10.3.2005 in

accordance with law from the concerned office of

Indian Government and these documents have

been received by the present petitioners on

14.3.2005 through registered post thereafter

present petitioners have moved an application on

3.5.2005 to produce the same before the trial

court.

22. It is important to note here that evidence of

the present petitioners has not been closed.

Writ Petition No. 995 of 2007

23. In view of the above discussion, both the

courts below have committed illegality by

dismissing the application of the present

petitioners to produce above

mentioned

documents.

24. For the foregoing reasons this petition is

allowed. Impugned orders of the courts below

are hereby set-aside. Application of the present

petitioners to produce inheritance mutation No.

1744 dated 7.5.1942 and pedigree table

pertaining to years 1942-43 is hereby accepted

as prayed for. However, present

respondents/plaintiffs would be at liberty to

rebut the same and the authenticity of the

documents under discussion will be seen by the

trial court after recording of the evidence. At this

stage, learned counsel for the respondents

submitted that direction may be issued to the

learned trial court to conclude the trial

expeditiously. With the consent of both the

learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court

is directed to decide the case expeditiously within

a period of two months positively form the date of

receipt of this order.

(Sadaqat Ali Khan)

Judge

Approved for reporting

For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.