2007 PLP 1924 (SCMR)
GHULAM RASOOL son of KALU — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1924 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM RASOOL son of KALU — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1924 (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 2007 PLP 1924 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Ghulam Rabbani, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1924 (SCMR) (GHULAM RASOOL son of KALU — Petitioner Versus GHULAM RASOOL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tarq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On ,appeal from the order, dated 11-12-2002 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore, in C.P. No.2579 of 1994).
S. 11
Constitution of Pakistan (1973),. Art.185(3)
Petitioner had contended that High Court as well as the Courts below had fallen in error of misreading and non-reading of evidence
Further contention of petitioner was that he was .found to be the owner in possession of suit land as co-sharer in a joint Khata and thus his suit ought to have been decreed
Petitioner also urged that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities would not operate as res judicata under S.11, C.P.C.
Leave to appeal was granted to consider the contentions.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The learned counsel submitted, inter alia, that the High Court as well as the Courts below fell in error of misreading and non-reading of evidence. It was further contended that the petitioner was found to be the owner in possession of suit-land measuring 1 Kanal, 15 Marlas as co-sharer in a joint Khata. A Therefore, his suit ought to have been decreed. He argued that the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities would not- operate as res judicata under section 11, C.P.C. Leave to appeal is granted to consider the above and the other submissions. H.B.T./G-3/SC Leave granted.