1986 PLP 2270(1) (MLD)
Sardar HAFEEZ ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2270(1) (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, J |
| Parties | Sardar HAFEEZ ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2270(1) (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 1986 PLP 2270(1) (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Fazal‑i‑Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2270(1) (MLD) (Sardar HAFEEZ ULLAH KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Abdul Sattar Goraya for Petitioner.
- Syed Kabir Mahmood for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Revisional jurisdiction being discretionary, held, would be declined where findings recorded by First Appellate Court do not call for interference in fact, and circumstances of case in absence of jurisdictional error.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Revisional jurisdiction being discretionary, held, would be declined where findings recorded by First Appellate Court do not call for interference in fact, and circumstances of case in absence of jurisdictional error. Ch. Abdul Sattar Goraya for Petitioner. Syed Kabir Mahmood for Respondent. This revision petition has been filed to assail the judgment and decree of a learned Additional District Judge, who after perusal of the record and appreciating the evidence of parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of facts and sold the Ihata in dispute posing himself to be owner of the same and did not disclose in the agreement that the Ihata was owned by the Provincial Government and that he had no subsisting right to sell the property. In such a situation, the learned Additional District Judge, after holding the agreement to be void has observed that where under a void agreement a party has received benefit, it is bound to restore it.
2. I have held a pre‑admission hearing and after hearing the learned counsel, I do not think this is a fit case for exercise of my discretionary revisional jurisdiction and at any rate, the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge do not call for any interference in the facts and circumstances of this case in the absence of a jurisdictional error. The result is that this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. A.A Revision dismissed.