1986 PLP 2579 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2579 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ilyas, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2579 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2579 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Ilyas, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2579 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Petitioner Versus HASSAN MUHAMMAD‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Liaquat Ali Sindhu for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 16th June, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S .115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Where no exception was taken to findings of Trial Court on certain issues before Appellate Court such findings of Trial Court, held, could not subsequently be assailed in revisional jurisdiction of High Court. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent findings of Courts below based on proper and fair appreciation of evidence on record, held, could not be called for interference in revisional jurisdiction of High Court even if such findings happened to be erroneous, provided no misreading of evidence was pointed out.
Judgment & Decree
This civil revision has arisen out of a suit for partition of a shop which is alleged to be joint property of the parties. The suit was brought by the respondent, Hassan Muhammad, against the petitioners Muhammad Shafi and others. It was resisted by the petitioners whereupon following issues were framed:‑ (1) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus stands and cause of action? (2) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his words and conduct to file the suit? O. P. D. (3) Whether the suit is undervalued for the purpose of court‑fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is the correct valuation and what is its effect upon the suit? O.P. D. (4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in its present form? O.P.D. (5) Whether the suit is time‑barred? O.P.D. (6) Whether the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 got the properties including the shop in dispute divided between themselves through arbitration mentioned in para. No.3 of the written statement and the shop in dispute fell to share of defendant No. l? (7) If issue No.6 is not proved in affirmative then whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of the shop and exclusive possession thereof. (8) Relief.
2. All the issues were decided against the petitioners and preliminary decree was passed by the learned trial Civil Judge. This judgment and decree were assailed by the petitioners by means of an appeal which was dismissed by an Additional District Judge. They have, therefore, come up in revision to this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners not only challenged the findings of the learned trial Court on issues Nos.6 and 7 but also on issues Nos.1 to
5. Before the learned appellate Court, however, nor exception was taken to the findings of the learned Court on the first five issues. It is, therefore, not open to the petitioners to assail those findings. Learned counsel also did not point out any defect justifying interference with the findings of the learned trial Court on issues Nos.1 to
5. I am, therefore, unable to disturb these findings.
4. In regard to issues Nos.6 to 7, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the two Courts below had misread the evidence while deciding those issues. No misreading of evidence was, however, pointed out by him. It was also urged by him that document Exh. D.1. produced by the petitioners, was not taken into account by the two Courts below. This is not correct because the said document was examined by the learned lower Courts while deciding the matter. They discussed the parties evidence before recording findings on issues Nos.6 and 7 and do not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity in deciding the said issues. Their findings thereon, therefore, do not call for any interference even if they happen to be erroneous.
5. There is no force in this revision. It is dismissed in limine. H.B.T.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.