2010 PLP 1865 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus NAWAR KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1865 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ejaz Afzal Khan, C J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus NAWAR KHAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1865 (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 2010 PLP 1865 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ejaz Afzal Khan, C J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1865 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHER — Petitioner Versus NAWAR KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ali Qadir for Petitioner.
- Fahim Wali for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd February, 2010.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 8 & 42
Suit for possession and declaration
Suit had concurrently been decreed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court
Counsel for the plaintiff by describing the background of the case had explained the origin of the title of each of the parties and person claiming through them, but when he was asked to refer to evidence on record, he could not do that
Courts below, in circumstances, had not applied their minds while handing down the impugned judgment, which could not be maintained
Impugned judgments and decrees were set aside and case was sent back to the Trial Court for decision afresh after recording additional evidence.
Judgment & Decree
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, C.J.
Petitioner through the instant petition has questioned the judgment and decree dated 12-3-2009 of the learned Additional District Judge-V, Mardan, whereby, he dismissed his appeal and maintained the judgment and decree dated 15-1-2008 of the learned Civil Judge-VIII, Mardan.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the entire gamut of controversy was not considered either by the learned Trial Court or the learned Appellate Court while handing down the impugned judgments and that they being based on misreading and non-reading of evidence cannot be maintained.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents by describing the background of the case nicely explained the origin of the title of each of the parties and the persons claiming through them but when he was asked to refer to evidence on the record, he couldn't do that because many of the relevant documents have been brought on the record, though, he had them in his possession. When this being the state of things, I don't think that the Courts below have applied their minds while handing down the impugned judgments. I, therefore, don't feel inclined to maintain them.
4. For the reasons discussed above, this revision petition is allowed and the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Trial Court for decision afresh after recording additional evidence. Both the parties are directed to appear there on 31-3-2010. Record of the case be sent there forthwith. H.B.T.132/P Case remanded.