2017 PLP 1849 (SCMR)
GHULAM ALI SHAH and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2017 PLP 1849 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM ALI SHAH and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 1849 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 1849 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed and Sardar Tariq Masood, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 1849 (SCMR) (GHULAM ALI SHAH and others — Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 14.1.2013 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No. 703 of 2009)
O. IX, R. 6
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 8, 42 & 54
Non-appearance of defendant
Effect
Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction
Defendant failed to appear and was proceeded ex parte
Trial Court after recording evidence of plaintiff only dismissed the suit
Plaintiff contended that since the defendant did not appear to defend the suit before the Trial Court, therefore, the suit should have been decreed under O. IX, R. 6, C.P.C., and even otherwise, the plaintiff had succeeded in proving its case
Merely because the defendant did not appear to defend suit, the plaintiff's suit could not have been decreed in the facts and circumstances of the case
On the basis of the evidence or rather the lack thereof, the Trial Court concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their case of being real owners of the property in dispute and thus dismissed the suit
Such finding of fact was affirmed in appeal by the first Appellate Court and the High Court through detailed reasoning had maintained the judgments of the courts below
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.01.2013 of the learned Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No.703 of 2009, filed by the present Petitioners was dismissed.
2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present Petitioners purchased the property in dispute from one Ilam Din. The predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents filed a Suit for pre-emption qua the aforesaid sale, which was decreed.
3. In the above backdrop, the Petitioners filed a Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction that they were owners in possession of the property in dispute and the Suit filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents was collusive with the Petitioners in order to defeat the pre-emption rights of a third party and it was understood that the Petitioners would be the real owners of the property in dispute and the predecessor- in-interest of the Respondents was only an ostensible owner. The Respondents on being summoned did not appear and were proceeded ex parte. Whereafter, the evidence was recorded. However, the learned Trial Court seized of the matter, dismissed the Suit vide judgment and decree dated 25.01.2008. Aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an appeal, which failed to find favour and was also dismissed vide appellate judgment and decree dated 26.01.2009. Whereupon, the Petitioners invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the learned Lahore High Court by filing Civil Revision No.703 of 2009, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 14.01.2013.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and perused the available record.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that since the Respondents/Defendants did not appear to defend the Suit before the learned Trial Court, therefore, the Suit should have been decreed under Order IX, Rule 6, C.P.C. Even otherwise, the Petitioners/Plaintiffs had succeeded in proving their case.
6. Merely because the Respondents/Defendants did not appear to defend suit. The Petitioners' Suit could not have been decreed in the facts and circumstances of the case. On the basis of the evidence or rather the lack thereof, the learned Trial Court concluded that the Petitioners have failed to prove their case of being real owners of the property in dispute and thus dismissed the Suit. Such finding of fact was affirmed in appeal by the learned first Appellate Court and the learned High Court through a detailed reasoning has maintained the judgments of the learned Courts below by way of the impugned judgment. The concurrent and consistent findings of the three learned Courts below appear to be based on the evidence available on the record and supported by the sound reasoning. No misreading, non-reading of evidence or other illegality has been pointed out so as to persuade us to interfere in the matter.
7. Consequently, this Civil Petition being without substance is dismissed and leave declined. MWA/G-7/SC Petition dismissed.