TAJ and others vs ABDUL GHAFOOR and others
This matter arises from consolidated civil petitions impugning a judgment of the Lahore High Court arising out of a property dispute. The predecessor in interest of the respondents was declared owner of the suit property by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner in 1975, a decision upheld by the High Court in a writ petition in 1980. The respondents subsequently filed a civil suit for possession, which was decreed by the trial court. On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the decree and remanded the matter, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce title documents. The Lahore High Court set aside the remand order in civil revisions, holding that title had already been successfully proven before the Settlement Authorities and maintained in earlier writ proceedings, obviating the need to re-litigate the same evidence. The Supreme Court found no illegality in the High Court's conclusions and dismissed the petitions. The core legal question concerned whether a party must re-prove title in subsequent civil proceedings when title has already been conclusively determined by settlement authorities and upheld in constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether a party is obliged to produce evidence of title over and over again in subsequent civil proceedings when such title has already been established before Settlement Authorities and upheld in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Can an appellate court remand a case on the ground of lack of title documents when the title of the predecessor-in-interest stands already adjudicated and maintained by the High Court?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.--- This judgment shall dispose of C.Ps. Nos.1962, 1963 and 1964-L of 2000 as all these petitions impugn the same consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 30-5-2000 passed in Civil Revisions Nos.104, 105 and 106 of 1997.
2. The predecessor in interest of the present respondents was declared by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner of Faisalabad, through his order, dated 25-9-1975, to be the owner of the suit property. The petitioners before us who were in possession of a portion of the said property approached the Lahore High Court through Writ Petition No,1360-R of 1975 questioning the said decision of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner but this writ petition was dismissed by the Lahore High Court through an order dated 14-5-1980. The respondents before us then filed a civil suit against the petitioners seeking possession of the portion of the property which was in their possession. This suit was filed on 18-6-1980 and was decreed by the Civil Court through a judgment dated 10-11-1993. The present petitioners impugned the said judgment and decree before the District Court at Faisalabad and a learned Additional District Judge, through his judgment, dated 2- 11-1996 set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and remanded the case back to the trial Court for a fresh decision essentially on the ground that the plaintiffs had not produced before the learned trial Court any documents to prove their title. The present respondents questioned the said appellate judgment before the Lahore High Court through Civil Revision No,104 of 1997 which revision petition was allowed and as a result whereof the appellate judgment dated 2-11-1996 passed by the learned Additional District Judge was set aside and as a further consequence whereof the appeal filed by the present petitioners before the District Court was deemed to be pending before the learned Additional District Judge who was then directed to proceed to decide the same in accordance with law.
3. In so deciding these revision petitions the High Court was influenced by the fact that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had successfully proved his title before the Settlement Authorities which order of the Deputy Settlement Commissioner had been maintained by the High Court through its judgment, dated 14-5-1980 passed in the above-mentioned Writ Petition No,1360- R of 1975 and that in the circumstances the present respondents were not obliged to produce the same evidence of title over and over again.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner who has been heard at some length could not point out any illegality in the impugned judgment or in the conclusions reached by the Honourable High Court.
These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. .