1985 PLP 1223(2) (SCMR)
AMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR AHMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 PLP 1223(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR AHMAD‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 1223(2) (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 1223(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain and Shafiur Rahman, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 1223(2) (SCMR) (AMIR and another‑‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR AHMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Agha Taj Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing; 17th February, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 29‑10‑1984 in Criminal Revision No. 1501 of 1984). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
0. XVII, r. 3‑ Defendant failing to produce evidence‑‑Suit for possession decreed on basis of evidence led by plaintiff‑‑Decision upheld in appeal/revision‑ There being no flaw in impugned judgment, dismissal of revision, held, justified on facts apparent from record‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment of the High Court, dated 29‑10‑1984, dismissing petitioner's civil revision.
2. Facts, briefly, are that Sardar Ahmad, respondent, filed a suit for possession of a piece of land against the present petitioner on the ground that the latter had encroached upon it. The suit was resisted and issues were framed. Sardar Ahmad respondent‑plaintiff adduced his evidence and Amir and Bashir defendant /petitioners were then required to produce their evidence on 17‑4‑1984, but they ailed to do so. There defence was, therefore, closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C . P. C . and the suit was decreed on the basis of the evidence led by Sardar Ahmad plaintiff‑respondent. The petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment of the trial Court which was dismissed by the District Judge' on 10‑9‑1984. The petitioners then filed a civil revision before the High Court which was dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Feeling aggrieved they have filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the impugned judgment. He has not been able to show any flaw in the impugned judgment and we are of the view that on the A facts as apparent from the record the High Court was justified in dismissing petitioners' civil revision. This petition is, therefore, dismissed being without merit. M. I. Petition dismissed.