SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI

Final-Term Examination Fall-2020

April 2021

Class: [LLB 5 YEARS VIII -C]

Course: [LAW OF EVIDENCE-II] Duration: 6 hours

Instructor: [HAMZA KHALIL CHAUDHRY] Max Marks: 60

INSTRUCTIONS:

 This 6-hour exam starts at 11 am and ends at 5 pm on _5TH MAY 2021.

 Read the questions carefully before starting to write your answer. Each question carries equal
marks.
 Your answer should NOT exceed ________ words. For each 100 excess words one mark will be
deducted.
 The answer should be written in MS WORD and uploaded in the Assignment section. DO NOT
send the Exam answer to your instructor.
 DO NOT forget to click on the Hand In button after uploading the answer.
 DO NOT forget to review your answer before uploading it.
 Include as many references to the caselaw as possible.
 It is an open-book exam. You are allowed to use the following:
o HIGH COURT WEB
o SUPREME COURT WEB
o TRIBUNALS
 Apart from the above, you are NOT allowed to use any other source. You must also NOT
take help from the internet or any other person.
 Try to finish the exam in the minimum time possible so that you are easily able to Hand In the
Answer Sheet.
 No submission is allowed after the allocated time.

Q 1. State the procedure laid down for oath under article 163 of Qanun e Shahadat
Order 1984 and under Oath Act 1873. Explain BOTH under RELEVANCY OF FACT.

Q 2. Chapter 5 of Qanun e Shahadat Order 1984 deals with ‘ of Documentary

Evidence’. State the interaction and relationship among article 95 of QSO 1984
AND POWERS OF ATTORNEY ACT, 1882
Q 3. Mr. A and B are partners in business, they are in conflict with each other over
some business transactions and amount. On 20th April Mr. B comes to office of
Mr. A and asks him to immediately pay 2 million rupees as it was his share in
business. Mr. A refused upon which MR.B fires 3 rounds of 9mm pistol on MR. A
in presence of office staff Mr. C and Mr. D and left office leaving the gun in office.
C informs Police and A is taken to hospital. Mr. E Police inspector arrives at
hospital and records statement of Mr. A and after some time A died due to
injuries suffered from gunshot. Body of A was taken for postmortem and was

1
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

buried later. Mr. F is son of A who logged an FIR to concern Police station and
submits CCTV footage of office as evidence.

Advice MR.B according to law of evidence and QOS. Which of the above stated
evidences and or witness can come during trial, And what could be the value of
such evidences or witness in the eye of relevant laws.

Q-4 Mr. A and Miss. B are class fellows and were studying in same
class. A proposed B on which B refused, on which A in anger sent voice notes to B
on whats app that he will not spare her and she will have to face dire
consequences. On 22 April B was kidnapped and Raped By A in a safe house in
absence of any witness however when A was coming to drop B near her house C
and D saw B in A’s car . B was dropped by A near her house and later complaint
was registered by B’s father on behalf of B. During investigation sample of DNA
was collected and sent to lab from A and B both.

Advice as council to B that what evidences or witness can support her case or
what would be the value of such witnesses and evidences according to law of
evidence and QSO.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR CASE LAW 5 & 6

FOR THESE TWO CASE LAWS PLEASE COMPLETE (IN BULLETS) THE REQUIRED DETAILS ONLY.
COMPLETE IN PARAWISE AND EXPAND THE DETAILS BELOW WHERE NECESSAY

 ACTION/ JUDGMENT/ ORDER/ FINDINGS/ RECOMMENDATIONS

 Name of petitioner
 Name of respondents
 RELEVENT SECTIONS OF QSO 1984/ LAW OF EVIDENCE STATE SECTIONS DETAILS

 Nature of offence/allegation. Quote Sections along their elaborations

 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE/SUMMARY

2
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

 EVIDENCES from petitioners along case laws/relevant laws relied

i
ii
 ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY COURT/TRIBUNAL

 EVIDENCES from respondents along case laws/ relevant laws relied

i
ii
 ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY COURT/ TRIBUNAL
i
ii

 Penalty imposed (if any)

 Current status of the order

Q NO 5
Before Rasaal Hasan Syed, J
SHABBIR AHMED and others----Petitioners Versus CHOLISTAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and
others---- Respondents
Civil Revision No.390-D of 2019, decided on 6th August, 2019.
ORDER
RASAAL HASAN SYED, J.----This revision petition arises from judgments of the courts below dated
09.2.2018 and 15.6.2019 in terms whereof the suit for specific performance was dismissed and appeal
against the same was declined.
2. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 30.12.2000,
claiming that in terms of the alleged agreement respondent No.4 contracted to sell land measuring 100
kanals for a total sum of Rs.6,50,000/-. It was further alleged that respondent received Rs.3,85,000/- as
earnest money and thereafter balance consideration was discharged on 16.11.2009 and 16.5.2012 by
respective payments of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- and that the alleged sums were acknowledged
through receipts. It was also alleged that the respondent was to seek permission under section 19 of the
Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 for the alienation of the suit property which was avoided
and ultimately refused and in view thereof the suit for specific performance was instituted to enforce
the agreement.
Respondent No. 4 contested the suit, denied the existence or execution of sale agreement or the
receipts of any payment pursuant to any agreement as alleged. The suit was dismissed by the learned
trial court vide judgment dated 09.2.2018, after considering the evidence of parties. Appeal of the
petitioners against dismissal of suit was also turned down by the learned Addl. District Judge on
15.6.2019. In this revision petition the validity of both the judgments is now under challenge.

3
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned decisions of the learned courts below
were a result of misreading and non-reading of evidence; the respondent No.1 having denied the
execution/thumb impression/signatures, the onus was upon him to prove that the document was not
genuine; the oral and documentary evidence produced by petitioners including the testimonies of
stamp-vendor and deedwriter were good enough to prove the execution which were illegally
disbelieved; and that the petitioners had discharged the onus of proof through cogent evidence which
could not be rebutted by the opposite side and in these circumstances, the judgments of two courts
below could not sustain.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents, who was in attendance on watching brief, was also allowed to
argue the case in rebuttal. He submitted that concurrent findings of fact were recorded by two courts,
no specific misreading or non-reading of evidence could be pointed out, execution of the document or
the payment under it as alleged were never established or proved through any admissible evidence and
that interference in revisional jurisdiction against findings of facts concurrently recorded by the courts
below, in the absence of gross misreading of evidence, is never allowed.
5. Deeper analysis of the material placed on record reveals that the petitioners' claim was based on the
agreement of sale dated 30.12.2000 which was categorically denied by respondent No. 4 who termed
the entire story as fictional. In view of the positive assertion as to the alleged execution of agreement
and claim for payment of earnest money heavy onus was upon the petitioners to prove the agreement
and payment under it in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 and 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat
Order, 1984. These provisions mandate that two attesting witnesses shall appear to prove the execution
of document. In this case only one attesting witness was produced and about the other attesting witness
it was claimed that he had died. Son of the deceased witness appeared as P.W.2, whose testimony was
disbelieved by both the courts below and rightly so.
Obviously, he was not a witness to the execution of document or to the settlement of transaction nor he
claimed so in his deposition. He was also not a witness to any alleged payment of earnest money. His
testimony under the circumstances could only be to the extent of signatures of his father which too was
not free from doubts.
6. Nazir Ahmad son of Imam Bakhsh who appeared as P.W.2 in the place of his deceased father, claimed
in his examination-in chief that the signatures on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 were of his father.
In cross-examination he admitted that he was illiterate. He produced a copy of the National Identity
Card of his father where his specimen signatures were as "Imam Bakhsh Baqalm Khud". The witness
admitted that his father used to suffix the words "Baqalm Khud" with his signatures and that on Ex.P.1
and Ex.P.2 the words "Baqalm Khud" were missing. The witness did not produce any
agreement/conveyance to show any practice of his father to sign with or without the words "Baqalm
Khud". It was for the petitioners to prove that the deceased was in the habit of making signatures with
and without the word "Baqalm Khud" but no such effort was made nor any attempt was made to seek
expert opinion as to the alleged signatures of the witness on Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 in comparison with his
signature on National Identity Card where he had signed as "Imam Bakhsh Baqalm Khud". The argument
that the deed-writer's statement could prove the execution is legally unsound and untenable as the
deed-writer is not an attesting witness nor he claims to have signed the disputed document Ex.P.1 and
Ex.P.2 or Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, as attesting witness. So much so these documents do not bear his signatures

4
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

in any capacity. In "Hafiz Tassaduq Hussain v. Muhammad Din through Legal Heirs and others" (PLD 2011
SC 241) it was observed by the august Supreme Court that the scribe of the document could only be a
competent witness in terms of Articles 17 and 79 of Qanune- Shahadat, 1984 if he had affixed his
signature as an attesting witness of the document and not otherwise and that signing of the documents
in the capacity of a deed-writer did not fulfill and meet the mandatory requirement of attestation by
him separately. Similar observations were made in the case of "Farzand Ali and another v. Khuda Baksh
and others" (PLD 2015 SC 187) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed to the effect that the
scribe of the agreement was not a substitute for an attesting witness and did not legally qualify to be so,
therefore, his evidence may have a supporting value but was neither in line with the mandate of law nor
did it meet the test of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. In view of the rule supra, the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of the alleged statement of the deedwriter
do not have legal substance. Even otherwise, it has been observed from the statement of deed-writer
that he had admitted that he did not have any license of deed-writing.
7. The argument that having disputed the thumb-impression and also the signature, respondent No.4
was under onus to prove the same, is legally unsound and contrary to settled rule. It has been
repeatedly observed that a person pleading positively the existence of transaction, execution of
document, the thumb impression and signature of the alleged executants, will be under a heavy onus to
prove the same and that as a matter of rule the beneficiary of the document is always required in law to
establish the transaction and also the alleged execution by producing two attesting/marginal witnesses
and in the cases of thumb-impression by seeking forensic examination of the thumb-impression in
comparison with the admitted thumb impression.
Failure to do the needful will obviously operate negatively against the alleged beneficiary. Reference can
be made to "Wali Muhammad Khan and another v. Mst. Amina and others" (2018 SCMR 2080). Likewise,
in "Khaliqdad Khan v. Mst. Zeenat Khatoon" (2010 SCMR 1370) it was observed that onus to prove the
transaction embodied in the mutation would essentially lay upon its beneficiary who had to establish
that the same was a result of conscious application of mind and not under influence of fraud played
upon him and that the beneficiary must prove it by producing evidence in accordance with the accepted
principles of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984.
In "Fida Hussain v. Murid Sakina" (2004 SCMR 1043) it was observed that where the mutation is
challenged on the plea of non-existence of transaction, the burden squarely lies on its beneficiary to
prove not only the mutation but also the original transaction which he is required to fall back upon.
8. The other important aspect as also noted by the courts below, was that petitioners in their plaint
claimed that the sale agreement was allegedly executed on 30.12.2000 when Rs.3,85,000/- was
allegedly paid as earnest money and receipt Ex.P.2 was executed in acknowledgement thereof. The
perusal of Ex.P.1 also shows that in its recital the alleged earnest money was shown as Rs.3,85,000/- and
same is reflected in the body of the document as well, which was allegedly paid in the presence of the
witnesses at the time of alleged agreement. In his deposition, the petitioner as P.W.1 stated that the
respondent was allegedly paid Rs.3,50,000/- and not Rs.3,85,000/- at the time of alleged agreement. He
was confronted in cross examination with the statement of plaint but it did not support either the
contents of agreement or his statement in plaint. This being so there was a material contradiction in the
oral and the documentary evidence. Same is the position with the statement of other witnesses, who

5
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

did not depose in terms of Ex.P.1 or in terms of the statement in plaint regarding alleged earnest money.
The two courts below, therefore, rightly observed that the contradictions in oral as well as documentary
evidence were another relevant factor to show hollowness in the stance of petitioners.
9. The next aspect is that Ex.P.1 shows that the alleged agreement was signed and thumb-marked by
Allah Bachaya respondent No. 4. The petitioner could have taken steps to obtain specimen thumb-
impression of respondent No.4 which could be sent, along with the disputed thumb-impression, for
expert view through forensic test but no such effort was made.
Obviously, the onus was upon the petitioners who were expected to explore all possible means to prove
the document, and to bring all relevant evidence to establish execution. Failure on their part to do so,
speaks volumes to negate the plea of execution. It is also manifest from the record produced that the
petitioner claimed transfer of possession under the alleged sale agreement but they could not produce
any documentary evidence, like Roznamcha Waqiati to support the plea and show any change in the
revenue record so as to insert the words "possession ba-tasawar baee". No such entry having been
made the plea of transfer of possession under the alleged sale agreement stood belied.
10. In the cases where the plaintiff claims a transaction of sale, execution of an alleged agreement, the
payment of earnest money, the entire onus is upon him to prove, firstly, the settlement of terms and
conditions of alleged transaction and, thereafter, to prove the execution of the alleged agreement and
payment of earnest money. It is always expected that the person claiming agreement should know the
day, date and month when the claimed transaction was allegedly executed or settled and the agreement
executed. Reference can be made to the observation in "Muhammad Nawaz through LRs. v. Haji
Muhammad Baran Khan through LRs and others" (2013 SCMR 1300). In the present case the petitioner
as P.W.1 was unable to depose the day, date, or month and claimed that he could only recollect the year
2000 which would make his stance doubtful. The alleged agreement shows date of completion of
transaction and date fixed for payment of balance price as 30.5.2001 but the petitioners were silent as
to what happened for next eight years of the alleged agreement, as during those eight years they made
no correspondence to claim agreement or ever insist for the procurement of permission from the
Collector under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 nor did they file
a suit for enforcement of the agreement. It is only after nine years that receipts Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 were
fabricated and in terms whereof it was claimed that Rs.2,00,000/- were paid on 30.12.2009 which too
could not be proved as the depositions in this regard were self-contradictory and unbelievable and
rightly so disbelieved by the courts below.
The petitioners fabricated the stance of alleged payment on 16.11.2005 and 15.5.2012 which is
inexplicable hiatus in years from the date of alleged document. As rightly held by the courts below, an
attempt was made to cover up the lacuna by concocting two receipts of alleged payment of balance sale
consideration which were produced as Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 but the same could not be proved through any
credible evidence. It cannot be ignored that respondent No.4 was an illiterate persons as also confirmed
by him in his statement on oath as D.W.1, but despite that the agreement is not shown to have been
witnessed by any of the close relatives, like son nor any evidence of independent advice is claimed and
this sufficiently raised serious doubts in the claim of petitioners.
11. The cumulative effect of all these factors and circumstances proved beyond doubt that the entire
case of the petitioners was ill-founded, the alleged transaction, the agreement and also the alleged

6
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

receipts were never proved by any credible or admissible evidence. The learned courts below after in
depth scrutiny of the evidence, concurrently held that the petitioners had failed to prove the existence
or execution of alleged transaction/agreement. No specific misreading or non-reading of evidence,
affecting the findings could be pointed out in the course of hearing of this petition nor any misreading or
non reading was observed.
12. The findings recorded by the courts below are based on correct analysis and appreciation of
evidence which suffer from no error of law, hence do not call for any interference. In result this revision
petition is devoid of merit which is dismissed.
Revision dismissed.

Q NO 6.

Before Waqar Ahmad Seth, C.J. and Muhammad Naeem Anwar, J

Dr. MAZHAR UL HAQ KAKAKHEL---Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL
ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and 4 others---Respondents
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, J.---Through this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of
the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner seeks the following prayers: -
i. Declare that impugned VR and extortion of money from petitioner secured by respondents through
misrepresentation, fraud, coercion and misuse of their power is illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, capricious
and without any lawful jurisdiction as such is liable to be set aside.
ii. Direct the respondent to return the amount of Rs. 6.5 Million along with interest taken by them under
duress. By unlawful mean and deception to the petitioner, with immediate effect.
iii. Restrain the respondents from making the information regarding the case of petitioner public and
that the proceeding of the instant petition may please be held in camera.
iv. Grant interim relief by suspending the VR and holding that the factum of VR should not be used to
the detriment of the petitioner, till the final disposal of instant writ petition.
v. Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. Momentous facts leading to the institution of this petition are that the petitioner has been serving as
Police Officer and presently posted as Director Federal Investigation Agency (BPS-20) at Islamabad,
however, since his appointment he remained on different posts in Police Department of Pakistan,
similarly, in connection with the affairs of his service, he was also deputed and posted as Community
Welfare Attach at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; that the petitioner had visited the respondents' office on 3rd of

7
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

February,2014, for which he received a telephonic call a day ago on March 1st, 2014, where he was
apprised to have been incriminated by one of his casual friend, namely, Raza Ali Khan accused in the
Crime weapon scandal, allegedly to be the beneficiary in police weapon scam
for embezzlement of 6.5 Million, he was also threatened with arrest, defamation, losing of his senior
management training and the promotion in BPS-20 and was given three days' time, he requested the
respondents to go through from the statement of Raza Ali Khan who allegedly made him accused in the
case but they refused. He tried his level best to get him exonerate from the allegations levelled against
him and to clear his position but due to harassment, undue influence, pressure of his arrest by
the respondents for arraying him as an accused in the reference, thus, in such unavoidable
circumstances, when he was even unable to get legal assistance, was left with no option but to avail the
option of voluntary return (VR) with the assurance of respondents that the same shall be kept
secret/confidential. Therefore, he requested the respondents to at least determine his liability so that
he could arrange the same but instead of fixing the definite liability he was told that whatever he can
deposit shall be considered as against the voluntary return with an addition that his offer has already
been accepted and was assured that in case no evidence comes to connect him with the alleged weapon
scandal, his amount will be returned to him. With the aforesaid assurance, he deposited US Dollars
65000/-, which was his saving during the entire service. Thereafter, the reference was filed and evidence
was recorded but neither in reference nor in evidence any prosecution witness has ever named him so
much so Raza Ali Khan and another namely Arshad Majeed has not deposed even a single word against
him. It was also alleged that during proceedings Raza Ali Khan also pleaded guilty and the total liability
fixed by the respondents was paid by him including 6.5 Million which was illegally screwed from the
petitioner.
Therefore, the petitioner demanded his amount from the respondents with the plea that total liability
fixed by them for weapon scandal was already paid by accused Raza Ali Khan, as such, he is entitled to
get his money back from the respondents with an addition of their commitment. It was also made a
ground that respondents even did not honour their commitment for keeping the matter secret but they
disclosed it to the Establishment Department, hence, this petition.
3. When put on notice, the respondents have furnished their para-wise comments on legal and factual
grounds and opposed issuance of the desired writ.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their valuable
assistance.
5. In the backdrop of aforementioned facts, the petitioner prayed for the relief on the following points.
i. That he was allegedly charged by the accused Raza Ali Khan, however, neither any such statement was
shown to him nor Raza Ali Khan named him before the Court.
ii. That he denied from all the allegations, when informed by the respondents.
iii. Neither he was named in reference nor any of prosecution witness disclosed his name for the alleged
embezzlement.
iv. No role in procurement was attributed to him.
v. Voluntary return was the result of coercion, blackmailing, undue influence, misrepresentation,
pressure, fraud, deception and harassment.
vi. He was exonerated from the charges levelled against him in disciplinary proceedings.

8
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

6. Arguments of the respondents were as under: -

i. Petitioner executed an affidavit before filing of reference and his voluntary return (VR) was approved,
as such, to the extent of petitioner, on deposit of embezzled amount there was no need to array him in
reference.
ii. Procedure as provided in section 25A of NAB Ordinance 1999, was complied with.
iii. The petitioner admitted his involvement in embezzlement and to that effect he has submitted his
application on 21st February 2014 and later on submitted affidavit. Neither the facts were
misrepresented nor he was influenced undue, similarly for his VR neither he was forced nor deceived,
that is why since 21st February till filing of petition he has never made any complainant against
respondents.
7. For determining the fate of voluntary return, the application so submitted by the petitioner is of
worth perusal where he has disclosed the facts such as; "after being satisfied that a person had misused
my name and taken money as graft in my name from the police contractor in 2010- 11, I entered into
talks with the elders of the family of beneficiary and have achieved break through. The beneficiary has
agreed to pay back Rs. 6.5 Million obtained through fraud.
Now to avoid litigation and bad name to my reputation, and considering it my religious, national and
moral obligation. I have recovered PKR 6.5 Million from the said person through jirga and I am returning
the amount voluntarily. I will later deal with unscrupulous/fraudulent element under the norms of the
area."
The application was submitted by the petitioner on 21-02-2014.
8. Thereafter, he submitted an affidavit by mentioning that "I declare that an amount of Rs. 6,5 Million
was gained acquired fraudulently by cheating in my name and now on recovery from the beneficiary, I
am returning the said amount voluntarily with my free will and to unburden my conscious" it was also
added that "I shall not contest it through any court or arbitration by me or my legal heirs." Underline for
emphasis.
9. Since the application was not part of the petition, therefore, when the same was tendered during the
course of arguments, learned counsel for petitioner and petitioner himself was confronted with the
same, upon which, the petitioner, present in the court, frankly conceded that he had submitted the
application and the affidavit. May be, the application or the affidavit both of the same date i-e 21-02-
2014, are the result of pressure or harassment but the debatable aspect is that since
21st February 2014 till 2nd May 2016, the said alleged fact was never brought before an appropriate
forum and that too when the petitioner is not only an educated person but a police officer, who was
supposed to be much vigilant and conscious than the one of ordinary prudence. Such conduct of the
petitioner created much doubt in his stance taken in petition.
10. Even otherwise, the admission of the petitioner pertaining to the application and the affidavit, no
doubt, the same may not be out of context of contents, created a barrier for him under the principle of
estoppel, which has been defined in Osborn's Legal Dictionary as "the doctrine of law which precludes a
person from denying the truth of statement formerly made by him", and under the provision of Qanun-
e-Shahadat Order, 1984, under Article
114 which reads as: -

9
 SHAHEED ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO UNIVERSITY OF LAW, KARACHI
Final-Term Examination Fall-2020
April 2021

"114. Estoppel:- When one person has by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or
permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his
representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his
representative, to deny the truth of that thing."
11. On the principle of estoppel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case Dr. Muhammad Javed
Shafi v. Sayed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 SC 212) has held: -
"Where a person was aggrieved of a fact, he had a right, rather a duty to object thereto to safeguard his
right, and if such a person did not object, he shall be held to have waived his right to object and
subsequently shall be estopped from raising such objection at a later stage---Person was estopped by his
own conduct, if he though was aware of certain fact(s), which was likely to cause harm to his rights and
adversely affect him and was prejudicial against him, avowedly or through some
conspicuous act or by omission, intentionally permitted and allowed another person to believe a thing to
be true and act on such belief without taking any steps to controvert or nullify such adverse fact and
instead he slept over the matter. Such waiver or estoppel may arise from mere silence or inaction or
even inconsistent conduct of a person."
12. At the same time questions of misrepresentation, coercion and fraud requires complete trial which
could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction. In this regard, we are supported by the decision in a case titled
Fida Hussain v. Mst. Saiqa (2011 SCMR 1990), wherein it was observed by their lordships as under: -
"High Court was not to resolve disputed questions of fact in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under
Article 199 of the Constitution."
Likewise, in another case titled Government of Punjab v. Ghulam Nabi PLD 2001 SC 415) it was held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan that: - "High Court could not go into the disputed question of
facts in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction"
13. Thus, for the reasons discussed above, this petition is dismissed being without substance.
Petition dismissed

*****

Best of luck.

10