Judicious conduct: Probe ordered against judge who violated due procedure

Lahore DSJ asked to suggest appropriate action agaisnt the judge

LAHORE: Lahore High Court has directed Lahore district and sessions judge to hold an inquiry and suggest appropriate action to be taken against a civil judge who apparently passed a decree in a property suit without following due legal procedure.

On Monday, Justice Khalid Mehmood Khan accepted an appeal against civil judge Muhammad Wajid Minhas’s decree and set aside the impugned judgment.

He observed that the most glaring mistake by the civil judge was to issue the decree without reviewing the agreement between the two parties. “It’s not understandable how the trial court came to know about the contents of the agreement that is not available on record. The presiding officer of the trial court is either incompetent or involved in malpractice. The impugned order is an outcome of manipulation on part of the respondents and, probably, the presiding officer,” he said.

In the suit filed before the civil judge, the petitioners had sought a declaration and possession of a plot measuring 68 kanals and 13 marlas. They said that the appellants, as legal heirs of one Dhoop Khan and owners of the plot, had agreed to sell the property to them for Rs12,871,875 (at a rate of Rs15,000 per marla). They had further said that Rs3,574,375 had been paid and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of execution of the sales deed.

The respondents had submitted in the civil court that the sales deed was to be executed after the appellants’ declaration that they were the legal heirs of Dhoop Khan. They had said that despite repeated requests the appellants had failed to execute the sales deed.

On July 24, 2013, one Maratab Ali had appeared before the civil judge as one of the legal heirs of Dhoop Khan and submitted that he did not have no objection to execution of the sales deed. At a later hearing, the respondents produced title documents for property measuring 45-kanals and 16 marlas. The counsel for the appellants held that the suit was not maintainable because the sales agreement did not carry one of his clients’ thumb impressions. However, the trial court had decreed the suit in favor of the respondents.

In their appeal against the decree, the appellant submitted that they had made no statement in the court. They said the man who had recorded his statements as an owner of the property was a fraud and he appeared in the court at the behest of the respondents. They said they had filed an application in the trial court clarifying that none of them had recorded any statement before the court. They said their application had been dismissed.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that the appellants had recorded statements in the trial court but were now trying to shy away from their obligation to his clients. After hearing both sides, the LHC stated that the respondents’ claim had not been substantiated by the evidence.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 1^st, 2016.