2004 PLP 493 (YLR)
QADIR BAKHSH — Appellant Versus DIN MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 493 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Farrukh Latif, J |
| Parties | QADIR BAKHSH — Appellant Versus DIN MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 493 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 493 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Farrukh Latif, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 493 (YLR) (QADIR BAKHSH — Appellant Versus DIN MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Rafique Sheikh for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42
Proof-- Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Mutation of exchange was assailed by plaintiff on the ground that the same was illegal and based on fraud
Defendant contended that he had purchased the land in presence of witnesses but the witnesses were not produced before the Trial Court-- Defendant in support of his assertion had neither produced any sale-deed nor mutation of sale
Both the Courts below had dismissed - the. suit and appeal respectively
Disputed mutation of exchange was not even supported by the defendant
Findings on question of fact or law recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction, though erroneous, could not be interfered with, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction unless such findings were based on. no evidence or were arbitrary and perverse
Defendant failed to point out any material piece of evidence which was overlooked or was omitted by any of the two Courts below
Judgments passed by the Courts below, neither contained any misreading of evidence nor any material piece of evidence had been overlooked while deciding the issues
Defendant could not point out the commission of any error of procedure in the course of trial or appeal by the Courts below
Revision was dismissed in limine.
S. 115 (1) (c)
Words `illegally or with material irregularity' occurring in S.115(1)(c), C.P.C. have reference to material defects of procedure and not to errors of law or fact.
Judgment & Decree
3. After framing issues and recording evidence, the suit was decreed by the learned trial Court on 16-1-1998. Defendant's appeal against that judgment/ decree was dismissed by A.D.J., Multan on 24-3-2001.
4. The aforesaid concurrent judgments of the two Courts below are assailed in. this civil revision by the defendant on the grounds that: Both the impugned judgments are against law and facts; both the Courts below had acted in the exercise of their jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity; and the impugned judgment are based on misreading and non-reading of evidence.
5. Petitioner's counsel has been heard. Civil revision and the annexures appended therewith perused.
6. There is concurrent findings on question of facts by-the two Courts below that particulars of the property given in exchange to the plaintiff were not mentioned in the impugned mutation of exchange; the property agreed to be given in exchange by the defendant was not given and the defendant had falsely represented that he was owner in possession of fertile land in a compact block and defendant had not given in exchange any land to the plaintiff. The impugned mutation of exchange was even not supported by the defendant as while appearing in the witness box he said during cross-examination that he had, in fact, purchased the disputed land from the plaintiff in consideration of Rs.2,25,000 in presence of Noor Muhammad and Saeed Ahmad. The said witnesses were not produced by the defendant neither any sale-deed nor mutation of sale in support of that assertion was produced.
7. Findings on question of fact or law recorded by Courts of competent jurisdiction, though erroneous, cannot be interfered with in the exercise of revisional' jurisdiction unless such findings are based on no evidence or are arbitrary and perverse.
8. A perusal of the impugned judgments coupled with evidence shows that concurrent findings on questions of fact recorded by two Courts below are based on evidence and are supported by sound and plausible reasoning.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not draw my attention to any material piece of evidence which was allegedly overlooked or was misread by any of the two Courts below. In the impugned judgments neither there appears to be any misreading of .evidence nor any material piece of evidence appears to have been overlooked while deciding the issues.
10. In section 115(1)(c), C.P.C., the words "illegally or with material irregularity" have reference to material ` defects of procedure and not to errors of law or fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner: could not point out the commission of any error of procedure in the course of trial or, appeal by the Courts below.
11. For the reasons stated above, the civil revision being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed in limine. M.H./Q-35/L Revision dismissed