1991 PLP 466 (MLD)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Layyah and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Syed SIBT-E-HASSAN SHAH — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 466 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Layyah and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Syed SIBT-E-HASSAN SHAH — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 466 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 466 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 466 (MLD) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Layyah and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Syed SIBT-E-HASSAN SHAH — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch: Akhtar Masood for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.142
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.3 & S.115
Suit for possession was based on ownership and forcible dispossession within twelve years from the institution of suit
Evidence of defendants having been closed under OXVII, R.3, C.P.C. there was no evidence in rebuttal, and therefore, findings of Courts below had to be accepted on all the issues including issue of limitation and pecuniary jurisdiction to which Trial Court had applied its conscious mind
Nothing on record was available to disagree with concurrent findings arrived at by Courts below
Defendants could not point out any non-reading or misreading of evidence
There being no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the judgments and decrees- of Courts below, there was no justification to interfere in them
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
2. Before me, the learned counsel has challenged the findings of the learned Courts below on all the issues which are as under: ISSUES; (1) 'Whether the suit is barred by time? (2) Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction? OPD. (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for possession on the grounds detailed in the plaint? OPP (4) Relief. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in continuous possession of the suit land since 1958 and as such the suit for possession filed by the respondent was barred by time and that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee and jurisdiction.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that the suit for possession is based on the ownership and forcible dispossession within 12 years from the institution of the suit. The Courts below have concurrently found that the petitioners had occupied the suit land in Kharif 1984. Since the evidence of the defendants/petitioners was closed under Order XVII, rule 3, C.P.C, and there is no evidence in rebuttal, therefore, there is no option but to accept the findings of the Courts below on all the issues including the issue of limitation. The learned trial Court after applying its conscious mind to the 'relevant facts and circumstances have found that the suit was properly valued for the purpose of A court-fee and jurisdiction. I do not see any cogent reason to disagree with the concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading/non-reading of evidence. I do not see any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgments and decrees. Pursuant to the above discussion, I do not see any justification to interfere in exercise of the revisional power of this Court with the well-reasoned judgments of the Courts below. So, the, revision fails and is dismissed in limine. A.A./P-122/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.