1986 PLP 1809 (CLC)
HAMID ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. FIZA and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1809 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | HAMID ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. FIZA and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Belief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1809 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Belief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1809 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1809 (CLC) (HAMID ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. FIZA and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Bashir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 42--Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Where finding of First Appellate forum was based on oral and documentary evidence adduced by parties and was based on sound and cogent reasons, such finding, held, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court in absence of misreading or non-reading of evidence.
Judgment & Decree
(4) Whether the suit is bad due to misjoinder of parties? OPD (5) Whether the plaintiffs have no locus standi? OPD (6) Whether the plaintiff No.1 as widow and plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 as daughters and sons, respectively of Nabi Bakhsh deceased are owners in possession of the suit land as heirs? OPP (7) Whether Mutation No. 3980 dated 27-7-1973 is illegal, against facts and as such ineffective and inoperative upon the rights of the plaintiffs'! OPP (8) Relief. The trial Court finding all the issues in favour of the petitioner/ defendant dismissed the suit on 14-5-1978. Feeling aggrieved the respondents filed appeal which was entrusted to the learned Additional District Judge who while accepting the appeal decreed the suit to the extent of plaintiffs/ defendants other than Mst. Fiza.
3. The learned counsel has raised the following points:- (i) that the learned Additional District Judge has not decided issues 1 and 2 which were found in favour of the petitioner /defendant which were sufficient to non-suit the respondent/defendant; (ii) that oral as well as the documentary evidence has not been properly appreciated and the judgment is passed on misreading and non-reading of oral and documentary evidence.
4. I have considered the arguments in the light of the points raised by the learned counsel. As for point (i) I find that the learned Additional District Judge in paragraph 13 has decided issues Nos. l and
2. Since the declaration relates to inheritance therefore, he has very rightly held that in view of finding on issue No.6, issues 1 and 2 had to be decided in favour of the respondents/ defendants. As for point (ii) I find that issue No. 6 is issue of fact and the learned Additional District Judge has fully applied his mind to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and has given cogent and sound reasons in support of his conclusion. The learned counsel has failed to point out any material misreading or non-reading of oral or documentary evidence and as such point (ii) raised by the learned counsel does not hold any water. '
5. For what has been stated above there being no merit in the revision the same is dismissed in limine. H . B. T. Revision dismissed.