P L D 2000 Quetta 42 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD QASIM and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL QADIR‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2000 Quetta 42 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Fazal‑ur‑Rehman, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD QASIM and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL QADIR‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2000 Quetta 42 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2000 Quetta 42 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Fazal‑ur‑Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2000 Quetta 42 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD QASIM and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ABDUL QADIR‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Riaz Ahmed for Petitioners
- Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar for Respondent
- Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1999
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 28 & Art,.144‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Adverse possession‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below‑‑ Petitioner raised plea of adverse possession in the declaratory suit‑‑‑Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit of the petitioners‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Where both the Courts below analysed the evidence on record in its true perspective, no case, could be made out merely on the basis of surmises or conjectures‑‑‑Doctrine of adverse possession being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, provisions of S.28 & Art. 144 of Limitation Act, 1908, had been omitted ‑‑‑Petitioners failed to point out any irregularity or illegality warranting interference in the matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below was not contrary to law‑‑‑Revision being without force was dismissed accordingly: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below‑‑‑Exercise of jurisdiction by High court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑High Court cannot substitute the conclusions drawn concurrently and reasonably by both the Courts below by proper appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Where no error of law has been committed in coming to a finding of fact, the High Court cannot substitute such a finding merely because a different finding could be given.
Judgment & Decree
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 28 & Art,.144‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑‑Adverse possession‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by both the Courts below‑‑ Petitioner raised plea of adverse possession in the declaratory suit‑‑‑Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit of the petitioners‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Where both the Courts below analysed the evidence on record in its true perspective, no case, could be made out merely on the basis of surmises or conjectures‑‑‑Doctrine of adverse possession being repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam, provisions of S.28 & Art. 144 of Limitation Act, 1908, had been omitted ‑‑‑Petitioners failed to point out any irregularity or illegality warranting interference in the matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Conclusion arrived at by both the Courts below was not contrary to law‑‑‑Revision being without force was dismissed accordingly: (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 115‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Concurrent findings of facts by both the Courts below‑‑‑Exercise of jurisdiction by High court‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑High Court cannot substitute the conclusions drawn concurrently and reasonably by both the Courts below by proper appreciation of evidence‑‑‑Where no error of law has been committed in coming to a finding of fact, the High Court cannot substitute such a finding merely because a different finding could be given. M. Riaz Ahmed for Petitioners Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar for Respondent Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1999