' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 24-2-1999 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby his Civil Revision No,1758 of 1995 arising out of order dated 28-6-1993 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Faisalabad was dismissed.
2. Summarizing the facts, after an ex parte decree was passed in a suit for Specific Performance by the Civil Court and failing to obtain any remedy under section 12(2), C.P.C., from the trial Court petitioner challenged the impugned order before the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad in its Revisional Jurisdiction. On the offer of the petitioner to decide the proceedings on special oath such oath was administered to the respondents and the dispute resolved in presence of the parties and their counsel. Petitioner, however, falling back on his solemn offer moved an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. Which was resisted and ultimately dismissed by the Additional District Judge leading to a civil revision which has also been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition contended that learned High Court did not consider the affidavit filed by Ch. Muhammad Afzal Kahloon Advocate for the petitioner to controvert the stance of respondent Akbar Hussain before the Court of Additional District Judge on 6-3-1993. Proceedings of the Court, however, tend to indicate that the petitioner was duly represented by Mr. Toheed Ahmed Khan Advocate and nor by Ch. Muhammad Afzal Kahloon whose affidavit was introducedafter a lapse of nearly three months. Proceedings were thereafter adjourned to 11-2-1993 when special oath was administered to respondent Akbar Hussain on which date the petitioner was represented by another counsel namely Ch. Rafique Ahmed who accepted the statements. Suit was thereafter adjourned to 6-3-1993 when it was decreed. Learned counsel attempted to persuade us, to accept the affidavit of Ch. Muhammad Afzal Kahloon Advocate over the judicial proceedings recorded in the Court of Additional District Judge in view of unfair reputation of the Presiding Officer but we are not inclined to adopt this course of action which may lead to a large number of legal complications. In any event this being an essentially a disputed question of fact could neither be resolved by the High Court nor by this Court in the exercise of extraordinary Constitutional Jurisdiction. There is always a presumption of correctness in favour of judicial proceedings and credibility is attached to the proceedings before a judicial forum. Strong and unimpeachable evidenceis required to rebut the presumption which is badly lacking in the case in hand. We are fortified in our view, by the dictum laid down by this Court in Ghulam Muhammad v. Malik Abdul Qadir Khan PLD 1983 SC 68 which is on all fours and attracted in the facts and circumstances of this case.
4. Resultantly, we find no merit in this petition which is devoid of any substance and is accordingly dismissed.