2002 PLP 767 (SCMR)
AURANGZEB KHAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD JAFFAR alias JAFFAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 767 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | AURANGZEB KHAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD JAFFAR alias JAFFAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 767 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 767 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Qazi Muhammad Farooq and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 767 (SCMR) (AURANGZEB KHAN and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD JAFFAR alias JAFFAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Misbahul Hasan Abidi, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- M. Zaman Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Zaidi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th September, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 15‑5‑1998 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi passed in Civil Revision No.292‑D of 1984). (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.115‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3) ‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider, whether the High Court had incorrectly interfered with the judgments of the two Courts below in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under 5.115, C.P.C. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S 15‑‑‑Revision‑‑‑Concurrent finding 'of fact by two Courts below‑‑‑High Court remanding the case to Trial Court with certain observations for decision afresh‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil revision ought to have been decided by the High Court itself, when it had formed the view, after having discussed the entire evidence on record at length that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below were the outcome of misreading of the material evidence and the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the case‑‑‑Observations made by the High Court on certain striking features of the case would influence the mind of the Trial Court who had been directed to consider the evidence and the points arising in the case‑‑‑Judgment passed by High Court was set aside and case was remanded to High Court for decision on merits afresh.
Judgment & Decree
QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑This civil appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 18‑5‑1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court,. Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in Civil Revision No.292‑D of 1984 whereby the civil suit between the parties was remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh.
2. Put shortly, the relevant facts are that through Mutations Nos.2118 and 2318 attested on 23‑4‑1971 and 21‑8‑1974 respectively one Moulia had gifted the landed property in dispute in favour of his grandson Muhammad Jaffar. After his death the gift was challenged through a civil suit by his daughter Mst. Karam Noor and collaterals Aurangzeb Khan and Khuda Bakhsh on the grounds, inter alia, that it was fictitious and fraudulent and possession of the subject‑matter of the two gift mutations was not delivered to the so‑called donee. After a hot contest, the learned Civil Judge, Chakwal, vide judgment dated 14‑7‑1980, struck down the gift and passed a decree for possession of 2/3 share out of the suit‑land in favour of the plaintiffs. The appeal tiled by the donee was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jhelum on 17‑5‑1984 but his revision petition was‑ allowed on 18‑5‑1998 by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi and the case was remanded to the learned trial Court, with certain observations, for decision afresh, in the light of observations, after hearing the parties and considering the entire evidence.
3. Leave was granted to consider whether the learned Judge in