Find a Lawyer

--S. 114--Presumption of correctness to judicial proceedings Appellate Court in its order clearly mentioned that only point urged by counsel for petitioner in appeal against order of trial Court was one, relating to question of limitation only--Petitioner submitted that counsel appearing on his behalf before appellate Court contested findings of trial Court on issues of valuation of suit for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction- Respondent controverted said submission--Petitioner instead of producing affidavit of counsel who argued his case in appellate Court, placed on record affidavit of counsel who was stated to be real brother-in-law of petitioner--Counter affidavit of respondent established that counsel of petitioner being interested person had filed affidavit at instance of petitioner although he did not argue case before appellate Court- Presumption of correctness was attached to judicial proceedings in circumstances.

Jari Ullah Khan for Petitioner.

Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 14th October, 1985.

This revision petition arises out of judgment and decree, dated 12-6-1983 of the learned District Judge, Khushab whereby he dismissed petitioner's appeal and maintained judgment and decree, dated 16-6-1981 passed by the learned Civil Judge, First Class, Jauharabad.

2. Atta Muhammad petitioner, herein, purchased the disputed land from one Mahmood-ul-Hassan on 30-10-1972 Zulfiqar Ali the present respondent pre-empted sale on the ground that he being co-sharer in the estate had a preferential right as against the vendee-defendant. One Shahid Mahmood, a minor son of Mahmood-ul-Hassan also filed a suit pre-empting the aforesaid sale. Both the suits were consolidated. The learned trial Court decreed the suit of Zulfiqar Ali respondent and dismissed the suit filed by Shahid Mahmood being barred by time. The petitioner in the written statement challenged the valuation of the suit for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction and issue No. 6 reflecting the controversy was framed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner led no evidence to discharge the onus of issue but at the time of arguments filed an application for additional evidence to prove the statement of net profits. The learned Civil Judge rejected the application on 14-1-1981 and a revision petition filed against the afore-said order was also dismissed on 28-4-1981 by the learned District Judge, Khushab. Feeling aggrieved by the final decree passed in favour of Zulfiqar Ali on 16-6--1981 by the learned trial Court the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 12-6-1983. Hence this petition.

3. On 22-6-1983 learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned District Judge in para. 9 of the impugned judgment had wrongly mentioned that the only point urged before him related to the question of limitation. It was submitted that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contested the finding of the learned trial Court on issue No. 6 and he would produce his affidavit to substantiate his submission.

4. Mr. Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate representing Zulfiqar Ali respondent controverted the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and placed on the file affidavit of Zulfiqar Ali respondent who is himself an Advocate, to the effect; that he himself conducted his case before the learned District Judge, Khushab at Jauharabad.

Haji Ahmad Stier, Advocate learned counsel representing the petitioner did not argue the case on issue No. 6 before the District Judge, Khushab.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the petitioner failed to place on the record affidavit of Hap Ahmad Sher, Advocate who had argued the appeal on his behalf before the learned District Judge and has produced affidavit of Aman Ullah, Advocate who is stated to be his real brother-in-law.

The learned District Judge in para. 9 of the impugned judgment clearly mentioned that the only point urged by learned counsel for the petitioner before him in the appeal was the one, relating to question of limitation.

The presumption of correctness is attached to the judicial proceedings. The counter-affidavit filed by Zulfiqar Ali that Aman Ullah, Advocate is brother-in-law of the petitioner establishes that the latter being interested person had filed the affidavit at the instance of petitioner although he did not argue the appeal before the learned District Judge.

Even otherwise, it appears that after the learned trial Judge as well as the learned District Judge had rejected petitioner's application to lead additional evidence to prove issue No. 6, the learned counsel appearing on his behalf might not have considered worthwhile to reagitate the matter before the appellate Court.

6. For all the reasons mentioned, hereinbefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgments in exercise of the revisions jurisdiction of this Court and dismiss this petition as well as C.M. No 4152 of 1985.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.