1989SCMR455 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and another — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR455 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid labal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and another — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR455 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989SCMR455 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid labal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR455 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD RAFIQ and another — Petitioners Versus SARDAR and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16th May, 1982 in Civil Revision No.582 of 1982).
S.115--Revisional jurisdiction of High Court--Fresh argument Acceptance of- Suit for permanent injunction dismissed by Trial Court but decreed m appeal- Petitioners' revision petition failed because argument raised before High Court was not raised in written statement filed by petitioners in the suit nor an issue to that effect had been framed--High Court, held, rightly declined to acce t that argument at revisional stage.
S.115--Suit for permanent injunction decreed in app and decision upheld in revision--Petitioner's plea that vendor-respondent had no authority to alienate land in dispute, repelled by High Court because no issue was framed in that regard--Since petitioners did not make any effort to get an additional issue struck by Trial Court in that behalf, they by their conduct, had abandoned their plea regarding the authority of respondent to make sale of the suit land.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 16th May, 1982 whereby civil revision of Muhammad Rafiq petitioner was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that some State land was allotted to Ahmad .Nawaz petitioner No.2. Sardar respondent No.l purchased the said land from Ahmad Nawaz petitioner No. 2 through his father Dost Muhammad respondent No.2. As against this transaction Muhammad Rafiq petitioner No.l claimed to have purchased the said land directly from Ahmad Nawaz petitioner No.2. Sardar respondent thus filed a suit against the other parties alleging that he was in possession of the disputed land under the sale made in his favour by Dost Muhammad respondent. Sardar respondent prayed for a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering in his possession. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court but on appeal the Additional District Judge decreed his suit. It is in this background that the present petitioners moved revision before the Lahore High Court, Lahore which was dismissed. Hence the present petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued before us that the transfer of the disputed land in favour of respondent No.l was violative of the provisions of section 19 of the Colony Act as no sanction had been obtained by the petitioner No.2 before transferring the said land to respondent No.l. This argument had also been raised before learned Single Judge of the High Court but as this plea had not been raised in the written statement filed by the petitioners in the suit nor A an issue to that effect had been framed in that behalf, the learned Judge rightly declined to accept the said argument at the revisional stage. It was next argued that respondent No.2 who was father of petitioner No.l had no authority to alienate the land. This argument also was raised before the learned Judge who rightly repelled it for the reason that no issue was framed in that regard either. Since the petitioner did not make any effort to get an additional issue struck by the, trial Court in that behalf, the petitioners by their conduct had abandoned their plea regarding the authority of respondent No.2 to make the sale of the suit land in favour of respondent No.l. Since this is the position in our opinion there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. M.I./M‑569/S Petition dismissed.