1989 PLP 338 (SCMR)

‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal; grant of‑ Misreading of evidence‑‑Reappraisal of evidence at revisional stage‑‑Revisional jurisdiction‑‑Scope of‑‑Suit for declaration and injunction‑‑Decree set aside by High Court in revision‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions (1) that High Court itself misread evidence in the case when it held, that there had been, misreading of evidence in 5 instances and therefore reappraisal of evidence in the case was necessary; (ii) that no objection having been taken respecting the mode of proof of Exhibit which was an agreement between father and son and on which total claim of petitioner was based, it was not open at revisional stage to hold that document was not properly proved; and (iii) that petitioner himself being landless m village, could only purchase disputed shop in the name of his father because he could not purchase said property in his own name. Ch. Khalilur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court, instructed by Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th August, 1988. JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against judgment of the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench dated 6th October 1982 whereby the civil revision filed by the respondents was accepted and suit of the petitioner was dismissed with costs throughout. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner is real brother of respondents Nos. 1 to

4. Muhammad Isa was their father and predecessor‑in‑interest of both the parties. The petitioner acquired the shop in dispute in the said village and as he was not owner of any land in the said village, he got the shop Ihata in the name of his father Muhammad Isa who was a right holder. This Muhammad Isa died and thereafter the 'respondents claimed share from the petitioner in the shop in question on the ground that he had obtained it Benami i.e. in the name of their father. On this the petitioner filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was the real owner of the shop in dispute and that the other heirs of Muhammad Isa were not entitled to any share in the same. He also prayed for the annulment of the proceedings which the respondents had initiated against him before the Revenue authorities. He further prayed for the grant of a perpetual injunction for the protection of his possession over the disputed property. The trial Court after hearing the parties decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner. On appeal by the respondents the District Judge maintained the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Eventually the respondents find revision petition before the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench challenging the judgments and decrees of the lower Courts which was accepted by Darned Single Judge of that Court. Hence the, present petition for leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the High Court itself misread the evidence in this case when it held that there had been misreading of evidence in 5 instances and therefore reappraisal of evidence in this case was necessary. It was next submitted that no objection having been taken respecting the mode of proof of Ex. P1 which was an agreement between the father and son and on which the total claim of the petitioner was based, it was not open at the revisional stage to hold that the document was not properly proved. It was submitted that the petitioner himself being landless in the village could only purchase the disputed shop in the name of his father, because he could not purchase the said property in his own name. We grant leave in this case in order to examine the questions raised by the learned counsel. Security to be deposited Rs.5,000.. The appeal to be prepared on the present record with direction to file all the necessary documents on which reliance may be placed. Status quo to continue till the disposal of the main appeal. M.I./Q‑16/S Leave granted.