SHAHID BILAL HASSAN J. This single judgment will dispose of the captioned revision petition as well as connected C.R.No.24020 of 2021, C.R.No.10730 of 2021 and C.R.No.12562 of 2021, as in all, common question of law and facts are involved as well as one and the same judgments and decrees have been called into question.
2. Facts, in precision, are as such that respondent No.1 instituted a suit for declaration against the present petitioners and remaining respondents No.2 to 5 in the present revision petition. The petitioners also instituted a suit for declaration with permanent injunction against the respondents whereby the petitioner No.1 sought cancellation of gift deed bearing documen t No.1878, Book No.1, Volume No.2099 dated 02.04.2013 (on the basis of which the respondent No.1 instituted her suit), alleging therein that the same was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation by the respondent No.1 and others. The respondent No.2 also filed a separate suit in this regard.
Rival parties contested each other 's suit. On 05.11.2014, donor/father of the parties namely Shafique A. Siddiqui appeared before the learned trial Court and recorded his detailed and comprehensive statement wherein he categorically , unambiguously and unequivocally stated that he has executed gift deed of the suit property in favour of his daughter Gulnar Khalid, responden t No.1, with his free will and without any coercion and undue influence as well as in his complete senses. After recording of the said statement, the respondent Gulnar Khalid made an application under Order XII, Rule 6, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for passing a judgment and decree in her favour but the learned trial Court dismissed the said application, who filed revision petition, which was allowed and the learned trial Court was directed to decide the contention of the respondent Gulnar Khalid in the light of the statement of her father/donor Shafique A. Siddiqui. On the other hand, the present respondent No.2 namely Rubina Amjad filed a writ petition bearing No.131333 of 2018 before this Court, which was dismissed. Therefore, in the light of the direction of the learned revisio nal Court and this Court, the learned trial Court decided the application under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Order XV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and decreed the suit for declaration instituted by the respondent No.1 titled "Gulnar Khalid v. Shahnaz Shafique, etc." , whereas the plaints of suits instituted by the present petitioners Shahnaz Shafique, etc. and Mst. Rubina Amjad, were rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 vide impugned orders/judgment and decrees dated 10.03.2020. Hence, the captioned revision petition as well as connected C.Rs. (detailed above) calling into question the validity and vires of impugned orders rejecting the plaints of suits instituted by the present petitioners and respondent No.2/Mst. Rubina Amjad and decreeing the suit of the respondent No.1/Mst. Gulnar Khalid.
2. Heard.
3. Rule 6 of Order XII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides:- "6. Judgment on admissions. Any party may, at any stage of a suit, where admissions of fact have been made , either on the pleadings, or otherwise, apply to the Court for such judgment or order as upon such admissions he may be entitled to, without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties; and the Court may upon such application make such order , or give such judgment, as the Court may think just."
Rule 1 of Order XV , Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enunciates:- "Parties not at issue. Where at the first hearing of a suit it appears that the parties are not at issue on any question of law or of fact, the Court may at once pronounce judgment.?
In the present case there is no denial to the factum that the disputed house was owned by Shafique A. Siddiqui (deceased), father of the parties, who gifted out the same to respondent No.1 namely Gulnar Khalid, through gift deed bearing document No.1878, Book No.1, Volume No.2099 dated 02.04.2013 and when the respondent No.1 instituted a suit for declaration, obviously , on refusal of her entitlement, on the basis of said document, the said Shafique A. Siddiqui, the donor , appeared before the learned trial Court on 05.11.2014 and in a categorical, unambiguous and in a vivid way recorded his detailed statement on oath in favour of respondent No.1 and the learned Courts below have reproduced the said statement of the deceased Shafique A. Siddiqui in the impugned judgments in verbatim. When, the position remained as such, the learned trial Court, on moving an application under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Order XV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in exercise of discretion, vested upon it, may pass a judgment or order , as it thinks fit, as has been referred above, but the learned trial Court declined the request of the respondent No.1 on 26.11.2016, who challenged the order by filing revision petition, which was accepted on 11.12.2017 and the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court with a direction to decide the request under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Order XV, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and W.P.No.131333 of 2018, filed by Mst. Robina Amjad against the said revisional order was dismissed by this Court with the observation that:- `The father of the petitioner in his statement categorically stated that he gifted the suit property to his daughter while putting his signature and thumb impression on the order sheet. The presumption of truth is attached to the order sheet.'
4. It is not case, here, that Shafique A. Siddiqui appeared before the learned trial Court only once before the learned trial Court rather after recording his categorical detailed statement on 05.11.2014, he again appeared on 09.04.2016 in presence of learned coun sel for the parties and the learned trial Court, on the said date, cross questioned him in order to ascertain mental condition and soundness of his mind and observed in the order that:- `So, defendant No.5 was cross-examined by the court and he spoke about his name, parentage, correct address and profession as Electrical Engineering and still MD at ICC private, Limited. The mental condition of defendant No.5 has been found correct. He is a man of sound mind, hale and hearty up to the mark. Counsel for the defendant No.4 is hereby directed to clear position of Mst. Rubina Amjad on the next date of hearing.'
The said observation recorded by the learned trial Court had not been challenged before any forum at the relevant time and even the petitioner(s) did not move any application before the competent forum under Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 seeking declaration of unsoundness or soundness of Shafique A. Siddiqui, because oral stance has no value, especially when the said person while appearing before the learned trial Court twice on different dates with a gap of almost two years i.e. firstly on 05.11.2014 and secondly on 09.04.2016, did not seem to be of unsound mind. Reliance is placed on Arshad Ehsan v. Sheikh Ahsan Ghani and 2 others (PLJ 2007 Lahore 144), wherein this Court has held:- '6. There is no cavil to the proposition that the only forum competent to declare a person as "mentally disordered person" is one available under Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 and the same has overriding effect and no other Court could determine or for that matter grant any declaration, hence, the suit filed by the petitioners to this extent was barred by law .'
5. In addition to the above, it is worth mentioning here that in his statement dated 05.11.2014, Shafique A. Siddiqui in a categorical manner stated that he is affectionate and kind father towards his children and he has already transferred valuable properties in the names of his sons and daughters and has gifted out the disputed house in lieu of services of his widowed daughter Gulnar Khalid (plaintif f). This part of the statement of the deceased Shafique A. Siddiqui has not been denied by the present petitioners or other respondents.
6. So far as the objection that the registered gift deed was written on a non-stamp paper and adhesive stamps were pasted is concerned, after admissio n on the part of the deceased Shafique A. Siddiqui by appearing before the learned trial Court, the said objection loses its significance. In judgment reported as G.R. Syed v. Muhammad Afzal (2007 SCMR 433), the Apex Court of the country while upholding the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court reported as ( PLD 2007 Lahore 93 ) has held:- '7. It is a settled proposition of law that under Order XII, rule 6 of C.P.C. the Court is empowered to pass a judgment on the basis of admission of facts by the addressee made by the parties to their pleadings, at any stage of the proceedings. The learned High Court to adjudge the controversy between the parties placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in case of Amir Bibi v. Muhammad Khushid and others 2003 SCMR 1261 , and applying the rules laid down therein concluded that as the admission of the petitioner was specific, clear , unambiguous, categorical and definite, therefore, the trial Court had rightly granted decree under Order XII, rule 6 of C.P.C. As such under the circumstances, reiterating the principle laid down in the reported judgment we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment admits of no interference.'
7. In view of the above discussion, it can safely be held that the learned Courts below have proceeded with the case as per mandate of law and have not committed any material illegality and irregularity while passing the impugned orders, judgments and decrees warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rather after passing a decree in favour of the respondent No.1, in her suit for declaration on the basis of registered gift deed, after categorical admission by Shafique A. Siddique (deceased), the suits instituted by the petitioners in the present revision petition and connected petitions, lacks locus standi and cause of action, so the plaints in the said suits have rightly been rejected by invoking powers under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below , being well reasoned and up to the dexterity as well as proper and judicious appreciation of law on the subject, are upheld and maintained
8. For the foregoing reasons and while placing reliance on the judgments (supra) , the revision petition in hand as well as connected C.R.No.24020 of 2021, C.R.No.10730 of 2021 and C.R.No.1 2562 of 2021, having come to naught and devoid of any force stand dismissed. No order as to the costs.