2010 PLP 104 (GBLR)
GHULAMUDDIN and 10 others — Petitioners Versus RAHIM ULLAH and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 104 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAMUDDIN and 10 others — Petitioners Versus RAHIM ULLAH and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 104 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 104 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 104 (GBLR) (GHULAMUDDIN and 10 others — Petitioners Versus RAHIM ULLAH and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ehsan Ali, Advocate for Petitioners.
- We have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and gone through the impugned judgment, the contention raised by learned counsel amounts to a request for reappraisal of evidence to reach a different conclusion on question of facts different then those arrived by learned three courts below.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.42 & 54
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60(13)
Concurrent findings of fact by the courts below
Supreme Appellate Court, jurisdiction of
Trial Court after recording of evidence decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs, which judgment and decree was also maintained by Lower Appellate Court as well as by Chief Court
Contention of defendants amounted to request for re-appraisal of evidence to reach different conclusions on the questions of facts different than those arrived at by three courts below
Supreme Appellate Court did not consider it an appropriate case for reappraisal of evidence
No error on question of law was pointed out by defendants for determination and interference with the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
SYED JAFAR SHAH, J.
In this petition leave to appeal is sought against judgment dated 9-3-2009 passed by Single Bench Chief Court Northern Areas Gilgit in Civil Revision No.1412003, whereby concurrent finding of two Courts below have been upheld and decree granted in favour of plaintiffs/respondents maintained. Precisely the facts leading to the present petition are that plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit for declaration and injunction to the effect that they are owners of piece of land described in the heading of plaint, by virtue of an allotment order issued by Assistant Commissioner Ghizer on the recommendation of Raja Gupis in favour of father of plaintiffs/respondents which is in their possession and the defendants/petitioners interfere with their possession, so they may be perpetually restrained. The defendants/petitioner's contested the suit through their joint written statement and took the plea that the suit property is in their possession and the same has been allotted by Raja Gupis to their grand father. The trial Court after recording evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents which was also maintained by Additional District Judge Ghizer, as well as Chief Court Northern Areas in a Revision Petition filed by the present petitioners. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioners and gone through the impugned judgment, the contention raised by learned counsel amounts to a request for reappraisal of evidence to reach a different conclusion on question of facts different then those arrived by learned three courts below. We do not consider it an appropriate case for reappraisal of evidence, moreover no error on question of law has been pointed out for determination and interference with the impugned order. The petition is therefore, dismissed. M.H./29/Glt. Petition dismissed.