2008 PLP 1693 (CLC)
INAYAT BIBI and another — Petitioners Versus SHAHAB DIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 1693 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | INAYAT BIBI and another — Petitioners Versus SHAHAB DIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 1693 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 1693 (CLC)?
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: 2008 PLP 1693 (CLC) (INAYAT BIBI and another — Petitioners Versus SHAHAB DIN through L.Rs. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Azeem Malik for Petitioner.
- Riaz Ahmad Kasuri for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9
Suit for possession against illegal dispossession
Suit for possession on the ground that plaintiff had been dispossessed by defendant illegally from plot in question
Suit was decreed by the Trial Court and appeal filed against judgment and decree of the Trial Court was withdrawn by the counsel for defendant
Statement of plaintiff with regard to his claim in respect of plot in dispute was corroborated by the witnesses produced by the plaintiff and demarcation of land, which was produced by the Tehsildar on the order of civil court
Document produced by the defendant, itself proved that property occupied by the defendant, was in fact owned by the plaintiff
Counsel for defendant was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of record warranting interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction
Revision petition being devoid of any force was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL AHMAD, J.
Respondent No.1 since deceased filed a suit for possession against the petitioner and respondents Nos.2 and 3 on the ground that he has been dispossessed illegally from a plot measuring 12 Marlas, 121 sq. ft. situated in Khatauni Nos.44 to 48, Khasra No.4, Bangla Kamboth (Basti Shandara, outside Kot Haleem Khan, Kasur) claiming to be the owner.
2. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants on the ground that they had purchased the same from Fazal Masih son of Khushia Masih through registered sale-deed, dated 28-3-1991.
3. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge, framed the issues and after recording of evidence vide judgment, dated 19-4-1994 decreed the suit. The petitioner filed appeal which was allegedly withdrawn by the counsel for the petitioner on 12-12-1994. The petitioner filed an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. before the learned District Judge which was dismissed by him vide order dated 12-12-1995. Petitioner filed Civil Revision No.2623 of 1995 which was accepted by this Court vide order-dated 14-10-1999 and the case was remanded to the learned District Judge', to decide the case on merits.
4. After remand the petitioner filed an application under Order XLI, rule 27, C.P.C. for production of additional evidence and demarcation. The learned District Judge, vide order, dated 14-9-2000 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that piece of evidence which was sought to be produced in additional evidence has arisen during the pendency of litigation between the parties. The appeal was also dismissed by the learned District Judge, vide judgment and decree, dated 9-10-2000. Hence this petition.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the sole question is as to whether the petitioner was in possession of Khasra Nos.2 and 3 or in possession of Khasra No.4 and that the learned Courts below failed to frame such issue.
7. Respondent appeared himself as P.W. to support his claim. His statement was corroborated by P.Ws.2, 3 and
4. The respondent also produced Exh.P.2, the demarcation of land in dispute, which was conducted by the Tehsildar on the orders of learned Civil Judge and in his report Khasra No.4 was shown to be the property of Chiragh Din etc. and of respondent/plaintiff Ghulam Muhammad etc. through Fazal Masih etc. had illegally occupied land between Khasra Nos.3 and
4. Ghulam Muhammad and Fazal Masih had already failed in their suit and Mst. Rani Bibi petitioner No.2/defendant was' not aware of details of property in dispute. Exh.P.1 is the copy of sale-deed in favour of Fazal Masih. The documents produced by the petitioner prove that the property occupied by the petitioner is in fact owned by the respondent. Exh. D.1 is the sale-deed by Ghulam Muhammad in favour of Fazal Masih and the Exh.D.2 is the sale-deed in favour of Inayat Bibi. The same is the case of Exh.D.3. These exhibits are with regard to the property in Khasra Nos.2 and 3 while the suit is with regard to property in Khasra No.4.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity, misreading or non-reading of record warranting interference by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. This petition being devoid of any force is dismissed. H.B.T./I-33/L Petition dismissed.