Find a Lawyer

MST. SHAEEN ISHFAQUE versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Sections 9 and 42 constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 constitutional application was jointly between the parties to change the system property of the competent jurisdiction and the applicants filed suit for possession under section 9 of the Special Relief Act 1877. Yes, while the respondents filed for the declaration. On the basis of the decision made by the trial court on the basis of the owners of the same suit of the applicants, it was dismissed and the order passed by the trial court on the ground that the appellate court upheld the applicant's confirmation of division. Should have sued It was held by the appellate court that the applicants should have filed a case for division, which was wrong in law. The possession of the co-owner / co-owner was considered to be the possession of all, thus, once the suit property was jointly owned and, if not divided, in the context of the implementation of the question of limitation The High Court should exercise its authority and jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution, not substitute its own opinion and opinion for the court which has the power and authority to interpret the evidence and decide the matter according to law. Was entrusted with the option. The High Court directs the reviewing court to re-use its mind to review and examine the evidence on record and record its findings on a reasonable review, applicable judgment in the light of the law and an order of the appellate court The document was illegal, the same case was remanded. Law review filed by applicants in accordance with law property advocate from Sambrial lawyer