2025 PLP 2370 (YLR)
Ghulam Abbas — Applicant Versus Asad Ali and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2025 PLP 2370 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh (Larkana Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Ghulam Abbas — Applicant Versus Asad Ali and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2025 PLP 2370 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act ( I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2025 PLP 2370 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh (Larkana Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2025 PLP 2370 (YLR) (Ghulam Abbas — Applicant Versus Asad Ali and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General, Sindh for Respondent No. 4.
Headnotes / Summary
S.54
Suit for settlement of accounts and permanent injunction
Absence of entitlement/proof
Scope and effect
Claim of the plaintiff was that the defendant continued to harass him for loan' recovery despite extracting extra payments from him (plaintiff)
Claim of the plaintiff was concurrently rejected
Petitioner/plaintiff placed nothing on record that respondent/defendant had advanced any loan and he (plaintiff) made any repayments to the respondent/ defendant
Petitioner/plaintiff failed to prove his case
Trial Court rightly observed that petitioner / plaintiff had no case
Record revealed that no legal grounds or special circumstances had been made out by the petitioner / plaintiff before the Appellate Court to set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court
Appellate Court had not fallen into any error while passing the impugned judgment as no case was made out before it ( Appellate Court) by the petitioner / plaintiff
Even present revision filed by the plaintiff was frivolous and liable to be dismissed
High Court was minded to impose costs on the petitioner / plaintiff and his counsel, but chose not to do so
Revision, filed by plaintiff, was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Jawad Akbar Sarwana, J.
The Applicant ("Ghulam Abbas son of Dost Muhammad Kalhoro" / "Ghulam Abbas") has filed this Civil Revision No.53 of 2017 under Section 115 C.P.C. aggrieved by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge Larkana (the "Appellate Court") impugned Judgment dated 28.10.2017 in Civil Appeal No.78/2017 and the IInd Senior Civil Judge, Larkana (the "Trial Court") impugned Judgment and Decree dated 26.05.2017 in F.C. Suit No.66/2017 filed by Ghulam Abbas. Ghulam Abbas could not prove his case on the trial side, and his appeal against the aforementioned Judgment and Decree was also dismissed.
2. The brief facts of the Civil Revision based on the information available in the revision file is that allegedly Ghulam Abbas obtained a loan, apparently based on personal need, from the Respondent, Asad Ali son of Abdullah. Ghulam Abbas claims that he re-paid the loan to Asad Ali. When I asked the learned Counsel for Ghulam Abbas to show from the record available in the revision file when and how the loan was repaid, he conceded none was available on record. He claims that Asad Ali continued to harass him for the loan's recovery and allegedly extracted further payments from him. Accordingly, he filed a suit for Settlement of Account and Permanent Injunction, in which the suit went undefended, and after Ghulam Ali recorded his evidence and arguments were heard, it was dismissed. In appeal, Asad Ali entered an appearance and vehemently denied Ghulam Abbas's claim. Once again, the Appellate Court rejected Ghulam Abbas's claims, as set out in his appeal against the impugned Judgment and Decree.
3. The Applicant's placed nothing on record to show that Asad Ali advanced any loan, and Ghulam Abbas's made any repayments to him.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel and perused the record.
5. The Revision filed by Ghulam Abbas's is frivolous and liable to be dismissed. Ghulam Abbas's has miserably failed to prove his claim. The trial court has rightly observed that the Applicant has no case. No legal grounds or special circumstances have been made out to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. Even otherwise, no case was made out by Ghulam Abbas before the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court has not fallen into any error while passing the impugned judgment. This Court was minded to impose costs on Ghulam Abbas's and his Counsel but chose not to do so.
6. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate and trial Court do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity which calls for any interference. These are the reasons for the Short Order dated 15.1.2024 dismissing this Revision. MQ/G-12/Sindh Revision dismissed.