1982 PLP 938 (SCMR)
SULEMAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus BAGH ALI-Respondent
| Citation | 1982 PLP 938 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | --S.115-Revision-Dispute in revision turning out solely on appreciation, of evidence-Held, revision rightly dismissed by High Court in limine.-Evidence. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SULEMAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus BAGH ALI-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 938 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 938 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the --S.115-Revision-Dispute in revision turning out solely on appreciation, of evidence-Held, revision rightly dismissed by High Court in limine.-Evidence. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 938 (SCMR) (SULEMAN AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus BAGH ALI-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Said, Advocate and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate-on Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 16th March, 1980.
- Ch. Muhammad Said, Advocate and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 13-11-1974 in C. R. No. 120 of 1974 (BWP). --S.115-Revision-Dispute in revision turning out solely on appreciation, of evidence-Held, revision rightly dismissed by High Court in limine.-[Evidence].
Judgment & Decree
DORAB PATEL, J.‑The first seven petitioners are the heirs of one Karim Bakhsh, who, according to the respondent, bad sold him the land in dispute. But the eighth petitioner claimed that the same land and other land had been sold to him by Karim Bakhsh, therefore, the respondent filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the land in dispute by virtue of a registered sale‑deed executed by Karim Bakhsh. The suit was contested by Karim Bakhsh and the eighth petitioner, and both parties produced evidence in support of their respective claims. Further, the respondent did not produce the sale‑deed on which he relied, but produced oral evidence which according to the trial Court was sufficient to prove that Karim Bakhsh (now deceased) had registered the sale in the respondent's favour for the land in dispute. Therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit and as the appeal of the petitioners against the trial Court's judgment was dismissed by the District Court, they filed a revision in the High Court. But this revision was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 13‑11‑1974, because he was of the view that the concurrent findings of the Court below was amply supported by evidence. As learned counsel criticised the order of the High Court dismissing his revision in limine, we have examined it with the assistance of learned counsel and we find that the order has referred in detail to the evidence in support of the respondents claim. Therefore, the dispute in the revision turned solely on the appreciation of evidence and the revision was, therefore, rightly dismissed in limine. There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed. Petition dismissed.