2007 PLP 275 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI — Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 275 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 275 (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 2007 PLP 275 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 275 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and others — Petitioners Versus AKBAR ALI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Asif Ranjha for Petitioner.
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 13th April, 2006.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 8
Trial Court and Appellate Court had concurrently decreed the suit
Onus of proving additional issues framed by the Trial Court on remand of matter, was on defendants but they did not produce any evidence on the same
No satisfactory explanation was available as to why defendants did not obtain a sale-deed or got mutation entered to show conveyance of title to them
Explanation given by defendants that property stood mortgaged in favour of Agricultural Development Bank, had also not been proved by defendants--Impugned decrees were unexceptionable
Counsel for defendants, was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in impugned judgments and decrees, which would justify interference of High Court exercising revisional jurisdiction.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--This revision petition impugns the concurrent findings of the learned trial Court, dated 5-12-1995 and of the learned lower appellate Court, dated 7-12-2001 whereby a suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed.
2. The facts of the case have been set out in the impugned judgments and need not therefore, be reproduced in extenso.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in an earlier round of litigation the learned trial Court had believed the stance adopted by the petitioners/defendants and, as a consequence, the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was dismissed. However, on appeal the learned Appellate Court had framed two additional issues and had remanded the case to the learned trial Court for decision afresh after allowing the parties to adduce further evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that instead of adducing additional evidence after remand the parties had stated before the trial Court that they did not intend leading further evidence. It was argued on this basis that on the very same evidence the trial Court could not have decreed the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff controverted the above submissions. He adverted to the order, dated 21-5-1995 passed by the learned appellate Court whereby the matter was remanded to the learned trial Court. The two additional issued were framed by the Court in the following terms: "(7A) Whether the contesting defendants purchased the disputed plot, if so, when and at what price? OPD (7B) Whether the defendants have effected improvements on the disputed plot. If so, what is the value of the improvements and its effect? OPD."
5. The onus of proving the above additional issues was placed on the petitioners but they chose not to produce any evidence on the same. There is no satisfactory explanation as to why the petitioners did not obtain a sale-deed or mutation to show conveyance of title to them. The explanation given by the petitioners that the property stood mortgaged in favour of the Agricultural Development Bank has also not been proved by the petitioners.
6. In the above circumstances, I find the impugned decrees to be unexception able. Furthermore, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to advert to any such jurisdictional error or other legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees, which would justify interference therein while exercising revisional jurisdiction. In these circumstances, I find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./M-638/L Revision dismissed.