CLC 1999

1999 PLP 1656 (CLC)

Haji MOHIBULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHEIKHUL ISLAM‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar
Decided Date
Civil Miscellaneous No. 106 of 1999 with Civil Revision No.92 of 1998, decided on 19th March. 1999.
Honorable Judges
Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur. J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1999 PLP 1656 (CLC)
Forum / Court Peshawar
Bench Members Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur. J
Parties Haji MOHIBULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHEIKHUL ISLAM‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1656 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1656 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Jawaid Nawaz Khan Gandapur. J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1656 (CLC) (Haji MOHIBULLAH and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SHEIKHUL ISLAM‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Qazi Zakiuddin for Petitioners.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑No misreading 'or non‑reading of evidence by lower forums‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Lower forums had neither misread, nor non‑read the evidence produced before them by the parties and valid reasons were given for their conclusions after having properly assessed/appreciated the same‑‑‑No illegality/material irregularity having been committed by lower Courts and judgments being not arbitrary or perverse, revision was dismissed in limine.

Judgment & Decree

‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑No misreading 'or non‑reading of evidence by lower forums‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Lower forums had neither misread, nor non‑read the evidence produced before them by the parties and valid reasons were given for their conclusions after having properly assessed/appreciated the same‑‑‑No illegality/material irregularity having been committed by lower Courts and judgments being not arbitrary or perverse, revision was dismissed in limine. Qazi Zakiuddin for Petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioner present and heard at length. Record of the case perused carefully.

2. The learned counsel has failed to convince me that the lower forums have either misread or non‑read the evidence produced before them by the parties. A perusal of the impugned judgments would show that the lower forums have assessed/appreciated the evidence properly and after discussing the same, have given valid reasons for their conclusions. In the circumstances I am of the view that the lower Courts have committed no illegality/material irregularity and that their judgments are neither arbitrary nor perverse.

3. This petition is without any force and is dismissed in limine.

4. However, a perusal of the crossexamination of the plaintiff/respondent when he was being examined as P. W. 1 would show that he had stated in his crossexamination as under:‑‑

5. It is, therefore, observed that the petitioner shall deliver and the respondent shall take the Timber Depot Lot No.245 at Chakdara. Q.M.H./M.A.K./317/P Revision dismissed.