Mst Gul Nasreen VS Mir Zaman

I

Judgment Sheet

I'FISI IAWAII HIGH COU R'I',

A I]I}O'f'tABAD BENCII.

.l I !D l('l /1L l)liPA R7'M I':N'l'

( ll No. l -1.1-A ol'2(X)9

,il t)(;.\1t..\-t'

!)ula of hr: ur irty . 08, t0t2018

lplrclltrnt ...(,\l.tt. (itrl i\itr:t t'cn ctc) h)t .Llr lJukltt .Lrnrtl Khun. .1,/r'r,,,r1. . ....

llc.sltotttlcttt ... L\ lir /.umun clc) b).' ,\,1..5 llu ju .\ltrhatntttud liryyu , ttt .\furlik ,\lt'hmood .1khtur. .,lLlytn rr/L',; ..

SY I.]I) M t]IIAMMAD A'I"I-IOTJ I,] SI IAI I. .'.

'l lrc irrstarrt rcvision pclition undcr srrctiorr I l-i (1.1'}.(' is dircctcd against thc .;rrdenrcrrt anci ordcr passcd by thc lcarrrccl I)istrici Judi-:c.

Manschra datcd 27.03.2009,'*hcrcbr', pctition No.7tll(r of' 2008 filcd undcl Scctiorr ll(1) ('l)('. was allowcd.

2.Ilric{'Iacts ol' thc plcscnt tcvlstotl pctition as avcrrcd thcrcin arc that prcclcccsstrr ol'rcspondcnt No.2 []adi-Lrz-)lanrrn oblaiitc(i :l Ioan ol' t{s.20,000/- Iiorn I lllli(', Manschrii (rcs;rondcnt I..lt.,.i ) and in iicrr lhcrco{, hc rr)otllla{r,cd his proilcl'tv i'rcitrltrt, K lrasrlt Nt> ll,l8 rncasuring I Kanal sit'.tr,,tcti itr h4auzit

Manschla vidc rcgistcrcci rnortgaecd clccd bcalins No.303 attcslccl on 20.01 .1 976; lhar rcspondcnt No.2 l'ailccl to pay tl.rc loan alnount, as a rcsult thcrcol, rcspondcnt No.3 movcd :ur application undcr scctiorr i0 ol- thc I IIlli(' Act XVII ot' 1952 1o thc corrrr o[' i)istrict Judgc, Manschra on 24.10.9E against rcspondcnt No.? and obtaincd an cx-partc dccrcc datcd 06.03.2002 asainst hirr: thal rcspondcnt No.3 filcd cxccution pctition againsl rcspondcnt No.2, who was nol scrvcd, howcvcr, NllW and warrant ol'posscssion ol' lhc housc ir-r qucstion was issucd against rcsponclcnt No.2 on 25.0 1.200 1: that NIIW was fclurncd un-scrvcd, whcrcas. w:tn'ant ol' posscssion rvas rcturncd with thc rcporl tha[ thc housc in clucstion was in occupal.ion ol' onc M<taztam Shah as mortgagcc, wlro subscqucntly appcarcd in rcsponsc to Lhc nolicc o{'thc Court and subrnittcd lris rcply on 21.06.2003; tilat Moazzarr Shah, plcdcccssor ol-thc pctitioncrs movccl an applicalion Lo thc cf'{'cct that hc was rcady to dcposit thc original iurounl o1'1hc loan on lrchali'ol thc .lLl(isr'rrc]rl t I )c btor/rcspondcnt No.2 to rvhich rcspondcnt

No.J was agrccd ancl 1hc lcar-ncd I)istrict Jirdgc. allowcd thc application viclc ordcr datcd 17.02.2006; that in thc nrcanwhilc. rlrc prcdcccssor o1' thc pctitioncrs diccl and thc propri ctary/owncrship li ghts wc rc lrans l'crrccl to thc pctitioncrs and lcsponclcnt No.? rvas rradc Iiablc to pay thc cntirc ducs to thc pctitioncrs, vidc ordcl datccl 25.03.2008 _) In thc mcanwhilc, rcspondcn t No.1 lrlcci an application unclcr scclion I 2(2) ( l.l).C. bcaling No.7Bl(r til 200ti on 19.09.2001i in 1hc Court o1' lcarncd l)islrir:1 J r-rclgc, Manschra, challcnging lhcrcin thc cx- lrartc .judgrr-rcnt and dccrcc datcd I 7.0?..2-006 and ordcr datcd 25.03.200ti passcd in casc No.02l12 <tl' 2006 titlcd lllll,-C Vs. Ilutli-uz.- Zaman, on thc grouncl that hc had purclrascd l()t/" 'Marlas ' alongwith housc liorrr lcspondcnt No.2 tll'ough mutalior-r No.(r471 I attcstcd on 12.12.2006 in licrr ol'I1s.254,000/-;

that lhc housc in clucstion wes rlor1.g,a1,.c<l ly rcspondcnt No.2 with [)rcdcccssr>r o{' thc pclitioncrs, who latcr on paid lhc mortgag,r:

amount and got vacatcd thc housc and hanclccl t posscssion thcrco[- kl rcspondcr-rt No. ) ; t.hal

.l

thc housc was again givcn to prcclcccssor. ol' pctitioncrs lbr rcsiclcntial purposc, as l-rc hacl no housc in Manschra; that subscqucntly, rcspondcnt No.l camc to l<norv abor_rt transl'cr ol'housc and propcrty in l'avour ol'pctitioncrs in pursuancc of'oldcr datcd 25.03.2008 passcd b1, I)is1ricl. Judgc, Manschra; rcspondcnl No.1 clain-rcci [ha1 l-rc was bonalrcic purchascr ancl aL LI-rc limc ol'purchasc, thc suit pt'opcrt), was no1 irndcr any cncumbrancc, as no cntrics wcrc madc in thc rcvcnuc rccord rcgarciing thc n.]ortgagc and thc .judgrncnt/ordcr \,as outcomc of'Ii'aud and misrcprcscn tation. I'hc said application was only contcsl.cd b1, ihc pctitioncrs by liling thcir writtcn rcply, r'aising lhcrcin lcgal as wcll as lactual objcctions

1.'l'hc lcarncd I)istrict.ludgc, Manschra alicr hcaring argumcnts ol'lcarnccl counscl liir tl.rc partics, allowcd thc application vidc judgmcnl/ordcr dalcd 27.03.2009 in thc lirllowinp tcrms:

"'l'h.ough element o/ fruutl i.; not palpoble on ./ace o/ record bul on lhis score applicllbn cunnol be lurned dov'n. Ihi:' cun be lrcutatl trt ordinary oppliculion fitr grunt ing I ha tlesiretl rclicf. ils lhis Oourt hu.s t tlirected ond ordered lhctl vthenevcr the .judgmcnl-tlablor natnel.t: lluditt: ltman oppeu's be/bre thc ('ot.l l untl

-t

tlaims the trunsfer o/ otrnet ,thil.t in hi.t fa,ttut . lrc :t,ill hu:,a !o puy tfix tlecrctul untounl ulongtt ilh nnrfurp h1, v,11;r1, commercial banks poy to ir ('u,\tomer. 'l'ha pt.e.\.ent /he uppliconl has stappcd in/o /hcir shoe:;, thcrtfbre. I y,hile ullott'ing thc trltplicalion tlircct thc oppliLont to lttt.t itlepo.sil lha th:crelul rrntoLrrtt tlongv,ilh mtrkup t,hich y,ill ha vor kctl oul fi ont contntcrciul htrnk to rc::ltontltnl.r i\o.2 lo I trur./ on pot)mcnl 0f the dmounl. the proparlt ttill slurul transfbrretl in fut,rntr of lhe opplicunl. Ikn,eyer. thi,: /run.sfar :t,ill remuin subject to lhe right:' ol re.sltondent No I if hc in ftrture dcttics or Llispute.\ trun.sfcr in fu:'otrr' o/ r.r14tlicunt. lle.s'idc.s. th.a upplit:Lrnl till tpltrouth proper firrrnt for /,r).\.\(.\.\/{r/? r'l 1n,1t11 1.1. l't lit \ t4l lcft to beur tlkit'oY,n co,\1.\.

llcncc, 1l.rc instant rcvision pclition bcli>rc this ( lou rl.

l. Argumcnts hcard and rccor.l availablc gonc throLrgh.

4.Pcrusal o1'rccorcl would rcvcal thal thc pctilioncrs havc challcngcd thc vaiiditv ol- inrpugncd ordcr ol' thc lcarncd I)istrict .ludgc, Mansclrra datcd 21 .03 .2OOL), whcrcbv, applicaliorl undcr scclion 12(2) C.P.C [ilcd by rcspondcnt No.l was dccidccl ir-r his lavor-rr Adr.nittcdly, thc pctitioncrs havc acqr-rircd Lhc moltgagc rights in thc clisputcd propcrt),.

initially thror-rgh mortgagc dccd dalcd 13 10.1971 and subsccprcntlv tht'ou-qh orclt:r- t riatcd i1.02.2006 passcd in tltc lixccution

I)ctitior.r lilcd by lllllfC/r'cspondcrrr No.3 IT l'avour ol- I)ir Moazzant Shah, pt-cdcccssor ol' pt:titioncrs ancl subscclr-rcnlly, alir:r his clcat.h.

thc said owncrship rights wcrc trarrsl'crrcd irr {ar,or-rr o1' thc pclitioncrs on thc basis oi' in'rpugrrcd oldcr datcd 25.03.2008. Mir /.unti,.n, r'cspondcnt No.I also clain-ring ownclship r:ights on thc basis o[' Mr-rtation No.647l I attcstcd on 12. I2.2006 on bclrall'ol' Iladiuz /.at:nan, rcspondcnt No.2/j udgurcnl dcbkrr. 'l'hc lcarncd Court bciow whilc allorving thr: 12(2) pctition ol- rr:sponricnr No.l, has obscrvcd that thcrc wils no clcmcnl of flaLrd and trcatcd thc said pctition to bc an ordinary applicalion and sct asidc thc impugncd ordcrs but in a vcry slipshod ancl cursory manncr, without rccorcling pro anrJ contra cvidcncc ol both thc partics dcspitc having controvcrsial and disputccl clucstions.

I1 is scttlcd principlc of adrr.r irristration ol' .justicc that Court is cxpcctcd to pass ordcrs alio' applyirrg its mincl in a juclicious lranncr iind not to acl mcchanically in orclcr [o nor.t- sr.rit thc partics without anv .just, l'erir and i rcasonablc causc. Lcarncd counscl appcaring

I

ou bohalf o{' rcspondcnt No.1 , howcvcr, coulcl not lcgally juslily thc irrpugncd orclcr passccl irr his l'avour. It is scttlccl thal rccordinrl ol' cviclcncc is not ncccssary irr cvcry casc unclcr scction l2(2) C.P.C, howcvcr, whcrc l'acts and circunrstanccs o1'a casc rccluirc rccorcling ol' cvicicncc qua ('actual aspccts, thcn thc partics should bc providcd opportunity to cxanrinc witncsscs and producc documcntary cviclcncc.

In this rcgarcl, thc augusl Apcx (lorrrt irr Muhammad Nalvaz Khan's case (2002 SCMlL 2003), has l.rcld tl.rat:

"l-he provitling of the opportunitJ, tl heuring is not confined otrll,ttt lhe exlenl o/ orgunrcnls rtlhtr lhc su/liciancy or insuf/icicttcl, o/ sut'h right t,ould depenl upott./itcts unl circumslunces tf each case and in ils e.rtanded meanings if o cusl ittvolves pure questiott o/ low., llrt: orul aldress 0r writlen representdion is sufficienl hul in cose in whiclr tlte motter needs xtmc ./itcluol inquir.1, either lhrongh dqcumenlorl, cvidancc 0r orul lc,;limon.l' oJ the wilnessts, lht purlies slrould be ollowed pxryar opporlunitl' lo hring tlteir evidence antl also to e-rumine lhe witnasscs."

lLcl'crcncc is also givcn to thc casc titlccl 'Mulrommud Altuf Vs. District,lutlgc urttl -i o!hrrs' 12016 YLll I l9l t.

'l -5. hLrs, kccping in vicw thc abovc notccl ( I r,r c ts, circumstanccs and discussion rlaclc

hcrcin abovc. this Court rcachcd at lhc conclrrsion thal thc impugnccl ordcr was passcd ir-r hastc without adhcring to thc scttlccl principlcs o[' Iaw.'['hcrclbrc, thc prcscrrt lcvision pctition is allowcd and thc trattcr is rcmandcd back to thc lcarncd (lourt bclorv, with thc dircction to rccorcl cvidcncc ol thc partics and dccidc thc l2(2) pctition alicsh alicr al-lirrcling opportunity ol' hcarin.e to thcr partics, strictly in accordancc with law.

I)arlics arc dircctcd to irPPcar

bclbrc thc lcarncd Court bclou' on

I nno unced.

Dt.08.10.2018.

.t tJ

(SIl)\lr .ltrslict S!cd \4uhrnnnrd '\tLrqtrc Sh'lr