2005 PLP 1914 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD GUL — Petitioner Versus ANWAR GUL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1914 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD GUL — Petitioner Versus ANWAR GUL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1914 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1914 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1914 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD GUL — Petitioner Versus ANWAR GUL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Aslam, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing; 2nd May, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 23-7-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Civil Revision No.427/1) of 2001).
Art. 185(3)
Suit for partition of ancestral property
Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below
Supreme Court did not find any defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court or an error in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by High Court to justify interference
Petitioner failed to show from record any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact to bring the case within the scope of S.115 C.P.C.
Effect
Judgment passed by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction was well reasoned and no substantial question of law was involved in the case for consideration of Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.
This petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been preferred against the judgment dated 23-7-2001 passed by learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in a civil revision arising out of a suit for partition.
2. The dispute between the parties related to a Haveli covering an area of 10 Marlas situated in Talagang District Attock which belonged to their common ancestor and was owned by them jointly. The suit filed by respondent for partition of Haveli, was resisted by the petitioner with the assertion that he was in possession of Haveli as exclusive owner as a result of private partition and that without asking for the partition of the total property jointly owned by the parties, the suit only for the partition c the Haveli in question would not be maintainable. However, the learned trial Judge passed a preliminary decree in the suit vide judgment dated 8-5-1999, which was further upheld in appeal by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 3-5-2000. The petitioner assailed the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the two Courts before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in a civil revision and a learned Single Judge in chambers while affirming the judgment and decree dismissed the civil revision. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Single Judge in the High Court having not discussed the evidence brought by the parties on record has failed to pass a proper judgment in the revision petition and consequently a serious prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the matter of determination of his right in the property. The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition is that there was sufficient evidence available on record in proof of the fact that non-inclusion of all the joint properties in the suit would make it a suit for partial partition which being the pivotal question in the case was not properly attended at any stage.
3. We having gone through the record with the help of learned counsel for the petitioner have not been able to find out any defect of misreading or non-reading of evidence by the Court of first instance and the Appellate Court or an error in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction by the High Court in the matter to justify the interference of this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us from the record any legal infirmity in the concurrent findings of fact to bring the case within the scope of section 115, C.P.C. and convince us that the High Court can disturb the findings of fact in its revisional jurisdiction even through appraisal of evidence. The judgment impugned before us is well-reasoned and we having found no substantial question of law involved in the present case for consideration of this Court dismiss this petition. Leave is refused. M.H./M-867/S Petition dismissed.