Contradictory Death Records and Validity of Compromise: Lahore High Court Sets Aside Decrees.
عوامی ریکارڈ میں تضاد اور مصالحتی فیصلے کی قانونی حیثیت
تعارفی پس منظر
مقدمہ کے بنیادی حقائق
وفات کی تاریخ کا تنازع
عوامی دستاویز کا ثبوت
دستاویزی شہادت کی حیثیت
ماتحت عدالتوں کی ذمہ داری
حتمی فیصلہ اور رہنمائی
Must read Judgements
2025 CLC 1526
[Lahore]
Before Shujaat Ali Khan, J
Mst. REHMAT BIBI through (L.Rs.)-Petitioner
Versus
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA and 2 others ---Respondents
W.P. No. 31166 of 2017, decided on 2nd April, 2024.
Punjah Pre-emption Act (IX of 1991)---
-S. 13-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 72---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--Constitutional petition-Contents of document---Proof---Petitioners under S. 12(2), C.P.C. assailed judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below decreeing suit filed by respondent on the basis of compromise effected by defendant lady who was predecessor-in-interest of petitioners---Petitioners claimed that suit uit was filed five days after the death of their predecessor-in-interest and relied upon death certificate-Validity-Contents of a document, in particular a public document, can be proved by producing its custodian in due course--On one hand stance of respondent/plaintiff was that predecessor-in-interest of petitioners died on 19-12-2003 but on the other he produced copy of Register relating to deaths prepared by the Secretary Union Council, on the basis of information furnished by relative of the deceased(s) or Chowkidar of the village, wherein date of death of deceased defendant was mentioned as 20-05-2000---Both the Courts below were bound to take pain to unearth real date of death of deceased defendant as it was the sole decisive factor for decision of lis between the parties-In ordinary circumstances, documentary evidence outweighs oral evidence but in exceptional cases documentary evidence cannot be relied up upon without due corroboration-High Court set aside orders passed by two Courts below and remanded the matter to Trial Court to determine whether predecessor-in-interest of petitioners was alive at the time of making statement before Trial Court owning compromise herween the parties, as entries in documents produced by parties contradicted each other---High Court directed Trial Court to decide application filed by petitioners, under S. 12(2), C.P.C. afresh---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Muhammad Younas and another v. Ghazanfar Abbas and 12 others 2017 YLR 2229; Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies, Zone-II, Karachi v. Messrs Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi 2002 SCMR 527; Mst. Saadia v. Mst. Gul Bibi 2016 SCMR 662; Tassaduq Hussain Shah and others v. Allah Ditta Shah and others 2023 SCMR 1635; Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan PLD 2022 SC 21: Ch. Muneer Hussain v. Mst. Wazeeran Mai alias Mst. Wazir Mai PLI) 2005 SC 658 and Mst. Safia Begum v. Muhammad Ajmal 2007 YLR 3030 rel
Irfan Ghaus Ghuman for Petitioners.
Takeel Ahmed Gujjar for Respondent No. 3.