| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 1952 2026 SLD 1952 = 2026 PLJ 22 |
Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahalwalpur
C. R. No. 179-D of 2019/BWP, heard on 23.9.2025.
Presented By: Abid Hussain Chattha, J.
Mr. Muhammad Naveed Farhan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Abdul Jalil Khan, Advocate, Mr. Muhammad Rashid Khan, Advocate, Mr. Khalid Umar Ch., Advocate and Mr. Shoaib Iqbal, Advocate for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 23.9.2025.
C. R. No. 179-D of 2019/BWP, heard on 23.9.2025.
Presented By: Abid Hussain Chattha, J.
Mr. Muhammad Naveed Farhan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Abdul Jalil Khan, Advocate, Mr. Muhammad Rashid Khan, Advocate, Mr. Khalid Umar Ch., Advocate and Mr. Shoaib Iqbal, Advocate for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 23.9.2025.
HAFEEZ MAI--Petitioner
VERSUS
ABDUL RAHIM--Respondent
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 12
Law: Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section: 115
PLJ 2026 Civil (Note) 22 [Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench] Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)-- ----S. 12--Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908), S. 115--Suit for specific performance--Agreement to sell--Payment of sale consideration--Delivery of possession--Execution of sale-deed--Cancellation of power attorney--Presumption of truth--Failure to rebut evidence--Jurisdiction defect--Misreading or non-reading of evidence--After recording of evidence, Trial Court concluded that Petitioner appeared before Court on 10.03.2012 and got recorded her statement before Court testifying sale of suit property against consideration of Rs. 4 million, receipt of said amount and delivery of possession to Respondent--Petitioner embossed her thumb impressions and affixed her signatures on margin of order sheet duly identified by her learned counsel where her CNIC number was also mentioned and said order was in hand writing of Presiding Officer, therefore, presumption of truth and correctness is attached to Court proceedings, particularly, when sufficient evidence was not produced by Petitioner to rebut same--Moreover, Advocate, who represented Petitioner, candidly deposed that Petitioner indeed engaged him to file written statement and that she herself appeared before Court to get her statement recorded--Trial Court further remarked that Petitioner-in given circumstances did not even file an application for comparison of (sic) and thumb-impressions--Consequently, aforesaid application of Petitioner was dismissed and suit was decreed in favour of Respondent--Appellate Court upon reappraisal of evidence on record reached same conclusion--It is a cardinal principle of law that presumption of truth is attached to correctness of judicial proceedings--The said presumption was rebuttable for which due opportunity by way of producing evidence was provided to Petitioner but she remained fail to do so--Hence, there is no occasion to interfere in concurrent findings of Courts below--Civil revision dismissed. [Para 6 & 7] A & B Judgment This Revision Petition is directed against the impugned Judgments and Decrees dated 25.02.2017 and…