2012 PLP 624 (MLD)
BAGOO — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 624 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BAGOO — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 624 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 624 (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: 2012 PLP 624 (MLD) (BAGOO — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.
- Nadeem Iqbal Chaudhary for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 115
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42
Respondent objected to competency of the revision application on ground that documentary evidence produced by the parties before Trial Court had not been appended in the revision
Objection of respondent was valid as documentary evidence that had not been appended with the revision could not be taken into consideration
Documentary evidence was not available on the record and without considering or going through the same, judgment passed by Appellate Court could not be set aside
Petitioner had admitted the possession of respondent over suit property and had simply filed suit for declaration without praying for possession over the suit property
Suit was not competent in the light of the bar contained in S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877
Judgment & Decree
AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, J.
Through this civil revision the petitioner has challenged the validity of the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge Liquatpur dated 16-1-1996, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed, consequently the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge Liquatpur dated 27-6-1993 is set aside and the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration on 18-2-1984 praying therein that he be declared to be owner of the suit land fully described in the head note of the plaint. He challenged registered sale-deeds dated 28-2-1976 and 25-10-1976.
3. At the very outset, taught counsel for the respondent raised objection that this civil revision is not competent as the documentary evidence produced by the parties before the learned trial court has not been appended with this civil revision.
4. I have noticed that the objection of the learned counsel for the respondent is valid. The documentary evidence which has not been appended with this civil revision cannot be taken into consideration. The documentary evidence is not available on the record and without considering or even without going through the documentary evidence, the judgment passed by the learned first appellate court cannot be set aside. Even otherwise, there is another fatal thing against the petitioner; treat the petitioner has admitted the possession of the respondent over the suit property. In this eventuality, I have noticed that the petitioner has simply filed suit for declaration. He has not prayed for the possession of the suit property. I find that this suit was not competent in the light of bar contained in section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Even otherwise, on the basis of voluminous oral evidence the defendant/ respondent has proved the execution of the registered sale-deed. Voluminous oral evidence and transaction of sale are in favour of the defendant/respondent. In the light of what has been discussed above, I see no merit in this civil revision, which is accordingly dismissed. K.M.Z./B-28/L Revision dismissed.