243/1989 Civil Revision Deputy Comm Thatta (Applicant) V/S Karim Bux (Respondent)
Sindh High Court
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 12-JAN-16
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VIII, R. 10, O. IX, R. 9 & S. 79---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.2(c), 70 & 72---Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), Ss.172 & 161---Suit for declaration---Defence, striking off---Scope---Trial Court while dismissing application for adjournment to file written statement ordered for ex parte proceedings and on the basis of affidavit in ex parte proof decreed the suit---Validity---Trial Court had decreed the suit without examining the plaintiff on oath---Original documents were never filed by the plaintiff with his affidavit in ex-parte proof---Mere filing of an ex parte proof by an affidavit was not production of evidence---Only photocopies had been produced as evidence, which were not admissible in evidence---Trial Court was bound to examine the correctness, veracity and truth of the claim of plaintiff set out in the plaint---Parties approaching the court should succeed on the merits of their own case and not on account of weakness of other side---Requirement of evidence could not be ignored by the courts while pronouncing judgment under O.VIII, R.10, C.P.C.---Defendants were government functionaries and not the government themselves---Suit should have been dismissed on account of non-compliance of provisions of S.79, C.P.C. as Government had not been impleaded in the same---Plaintiff had challenged the order of Deputy Commissioner with regard to boundaries of suit plot which was appealable---Civil courts had no jurisdiction in the matters within the jurisdiction of revenue authorities---When remedy of appeal was available under special law then jurisdiction of civil court could not be invoked without exhausting the remedies provided in the statute itself-- Present suit was barred by law---Plaintiff had not adduced evidence in accordance with law in support of his claim before the Trial Court---Public functionaries were not produced in the witness box to confirm the documents and verify contents thereof filed by the plaintiff with the plaint---Both the courts below had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them---Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside and suit was dismissed in circumstances. Nisar Ahmed and others v. Habib Bank Ltd. 1980 CLC 981; Haji Muhammad Moosa and another v. Provincial Government of Balochistan 1986 CLC 2951; Malik Muhammad Saeed v. Mian Muhammad Sadiq 1985 MLD 1440; Divisional Forest Officer, Afforestation Division, Sanghar at Khipro v. Khan through Legal Heirs and 10 others 2008 SCMR 442; Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department and others v. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi and others 2010 SCMR 115; Province of Punjab v. Muhammad Hussain PLD 1993 SC 147 and Haji Abdul Aziz v. Government of Balochistan through Deputy Commissioner, Khuzdar 1999 SCMR 16 rel. (b) Sindh Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)--- ----S. 161---Appeal before revenue authority---When remedy of appeal was available under special law then jurisdiction of civil court could not be invoked without exhausting the remedies provided in the statute itself. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 2(c)---Evidence---Scope---Evidence could be produced by making a statement on oath.Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.