2005 PLP 772 (SCMR)
Mst. MUSSARRAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus TAJ DIN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 772 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. MUSSARRAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus TAJ DIN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 772 (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 2005 PLP 772 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 772 (SCMR) (Mst. MUSSARRAT BIBI — Petitioner Versus TAJ DIN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Inayatullah, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Arif Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Talib Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from judgment dated 11-12-2002 of the Lahore High Court passed in Civil Revision No.1440 of 2001).
Ss. 115, 9 & O.XIV, R.1
Scope
Issue with regard to jurisdiction of Civil Court was neither framed nor was any step taken by defendant to claim such issue
Effect
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
Taj Din respondent brought a suit in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mianwali praying for a declaration that he was the owner of Ihata No.80 of Chak No.3-4/ML, Tehsil and District Mianwali; that Mst. Mussarrat Bibi petitioner-defendant had nothing to do with the same; that the allotment order, dated 16-6-1958 passed by the Settlement Officer, Bakkhar in favour of the said petitioner-respondent No.3 was illegal and fraudulent and further that the latter order, dated 4-11-1989 passed by the Collector, Mianwali was also illegal and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff. The said suit was decreed by the learned trial Judge through a judgment dated 29-3-1995. Mst. Mussarrat Bibi impugned the said judgment and decree before the learned District Judge by way of appeal which appeal was dismissed through a judgment dated 18-12-2000 of a learned Additional District Judge at Mianwali. This led the said Mst. Mussarrat Bibi to the Lahore High Court with a petition under section 115 of the C.P.C. bearing C.R. No.1440 of 2001 which also met the same fate through a judgment dated 11-12-2002 of the Lahore High Court.
2. Hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has been heard at some length and we have also perused the available record in the light of the submissions made by him.
4. There is a consistent finding of the three learned Courts regarding the factual controversy. All the said learned Courts including the Honourable revisional Court had duly considered the entire relevant evidence available on record including Exhs.P.2, P.3, P.4, P.5, P.10, P.12, D.2, D.3 and D.4. The said learned Courts had also examined the effect of the oral evidence led at the trial including the statements P.W.1, P.W.2, D.W.1, D.W.2, D.W.3 and C.W.1. The learned High Court had also found that no issue was framed with regard to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to deal with the matter in question nor were any steps taken by the defendant to claim any such issue as a result whereof no objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court could be entertained at the revisional stage.
5. Having thus, examined all aspects of the matter, we find that the concurrent findings and the consistent view of the three learned Courts were not open to any exception as it could not be shown that the said findings and conclusions were the result of any illegality or any misreading or non-reading of evidence by the three competent Courts.
6. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused. S.A.K./M-227/S Leave refused.