2004 PLP 634 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Petitioners Versus FAISAL NADEEM and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 634 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sayed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Petitioners Versus FAISAL NADEEM and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 634 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 634 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sayed Sakhi Hussain Bokhari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 634 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM and others — Petitioners Versus FAISAL NADEEM and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 8
Claim of plaintiffs was that suit property belonged to their father and defendants were residing therein as servants of their father and that said property was transferred in favour of plaintiffs by their father
Subsequently when defendants were no more servants of father of plaintiff, they were asked to vacate suit property, but they failed to vacate same despite some time was given to them for this purpose
Defendants resisted suit contending that father of plaintiffs 70/80 years back had gifted away the suit property to father of defendants and that they being successors of their father, were owners of the suit property- Claim of plaintiffs in respect of suit property had fully been proved on the basis of evidence brought on record whereas defendants had failed to prove their claim
Suit was concurrently decreed by Courts below--appeal filed by defendants against judgment and decree of Trial Court was barred by time and defendants could riot give cogent reasons for condonation of delay despite several adjournments were granted by the appellate Court
Application for condonation of delay was rightly dismissed by Appellate Court
Revision petition against judgment of Appellate Court was also time-barred and defendants had filed application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay but S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 being not applicable to the proceedings under S.115, C. P. C. , application for condonation of delay, was rightly dismissed
Appellate Court decided appeal after appraisal of entire material available on record
In absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence and any jurisdictional defect, concurrent find ings of Courts below could not be interfered with by High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Sher Muhammad v. Said Muhammad Shah 1981 SCMR 212; Muhammad Ramzan and 4 'others- v. Settlement Authorities and 2 others 1981 SCMR 194 and Jhanda, v. Maqbool Hussain and others 1981 SCMR 126 ref.
S. 115
Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5
Provision of S.5, Limitation Act, 1908 not applicable to revision petition under S.115, C. P. C.
Judgment & Decree
Relevant facts leading to this revision petition are that respondents filed a suit for possession against the petitioners and stated that they were owners of suit- land (measuring 4 Kanals, 2 Marlas, Khewat No.444/444, Khatuni No. 1270) as the same had been transferred in their favour by their father. They further stated that before said transfer their father had constructed houses over the suit-land for servants and petitioners/defendants were in possession of the same being their servants. The respondents mentioned that now petitioners/defendants were not their servants therefore, their father asked them to vacate the suit-land but they requested for some time which was allowed but they failed to vacate suit-land as per agreement, therefore, they were constrained to file suit against them. The defendants mentioned in their written statement that bout 70/80 years back Waryam Khan Lumberdar had gifted the suit-land in favour of their grandfather (Shah Muhammad) and he had constructed houses over the same. They further mentioned that they were successors of Shah Muhammad and now plaintiffs intended to dispossess them without any justification. After framing of issues learned trial Court recorded evidence of the parties and decreed the suit brought by respondents/plaintiffs vide judgment dated 22-10-2002. The petitioners filed appeal against the said judgment and decree but learned Additional District Judge dismissed the same vide judgment dated .2-1-2003. Hence, this revision petition.
2. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
3. As stated above appeal brought by petitioners was dismissed vide judgment dated 2-1-2003 but they filed this revision petition on 13-5-2003. As such revision petition is time-barred. However, the petitioners have filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing revision petition. They have mentioned in their application that their counsel had not informed them about the dismissal of the appeal and they came to know about the same on 26-4-2003. However, this is not good ground for condonation of delay. Even otherwise the appeal was filed by petitioners, therefore, it was their duty to pursue case diligently and take due care in the matter. The Appellate Court (Additional District Judge) had been granting adjournments in the presence of parties or their counsel. So contention of petitioners is devoid of force. Even otherwise according to following cases failure of counsel to inform his client result of case was not considered sufficient ground for condonation of delay:-- (I) Sher Muhammad v. Said Muhammad Shah 1981 SCMR 212. (II) Muhammad Ramzan and 4 others v. Settlement Authorities and 2 others 1981 SCMR 194. (III) Jhanda v. Maqbool Hussain and others 1981 SCMR
126. As such application is liable to be dismissed.
4. As stated earlier the petitioners has filed this revision petition on 13-5-2003. Their case is that they came to know about impugned judgment on 26-4-2003 and they received copies on the same day (26-4-2003). However, they remained silent till 13-5-2003 and they have no explanation for this delay. It shows that they were not interested to file revision petition.
5. The petitioners have filed application under section 5 of Limitation Act, 1908. However, section 5 of Limitation Act is not applicable to the proceedings under section 115, C.P.C. Reliance can be placed on the case of Allah Dino and another v. Muhammad Shah and others 2001 SCMR
286. So application brought by petitioners has no force and the same is accordingly rejected.
6. The appeal is time-barred and the same is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
7. On merits too the petitioners have no case. The case of petitioners is that they are in possession of the suit-land as owners because Waryam Khan, Lumberdar (predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs) had transferred the same in favour of their grandfather (Shah Muhammad) by way or gift. However, there is nothing on record to prove the gift made by Waryam Khan in favour of Shah Muhammad. According to record respondents/plaintiffs are owners of suit-land. The case of plaintiffs is that petitioners/defendants were in possession of the suit-land being their servants but now they are not serving with them, therefore they are liable to be ejected. As mentioned earlier the case of petitioners is that they are in possession of the suit-land on the basis of gift but there is no evidence in support of their version. As such their claim is baseless. So in the circumstances of the case, I find that learned trial Court had rightly decreed the suit brought by respondents.
8. The perusal of judgment dated 2-1-2003 shows that learned Additional District Judge decided the appeal after appraisal of entire material available on record. There is no misreading or non- reading of evidence. Likewise there is no jurisdictional defect in the impugned judgment, therefore there is no justification to disturb concurrent findings recorded by learned Courts below.
9. Resultantly this revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M-2220/L Revision dismissed.