Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 32 of 1975, decided on 16th Mare, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 13‑11‑1974 in C. R. No. 120 of 1974 (BWP).
--S.115‑Revision‑Dispute in revision turning out solely on appreciation, of evidence‑Held, revision rightly dismissed by High Court in limine.‑[Evidence].
Ch. Muhammad Said, Advocate and Rana M. A. Qadri, Advocate‑on Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 16th March, 1980.
‑The first seven petitioners are the heirs of one Karim Bakhsh, who, according to the respondent, bad sold him the land in dispute. But the eighth petitioner claimed that the same land and other land had been sold to him by Karim Bakhsh, therefore, the respondent filed a suit for a declaration that he was the owner of the land in dispute by virtue of a registered sale‑deed executed by Karim Bakhsh. The suit was contested by Karim Bakhsh and the eighth petitioner, and both parties produced evidence in support of their respective claims. Further, the respondent did not produce the sale‑deed on which he relied, but produced oral evidence which according to the trial Court was sufficient to prove that Karim Bakhsh (now deceased) had registered the sale in the respondent's favour for the land in dispute. Therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit and as the appeal of the petitioners against the trial Court's judgment was dismissed by the District Court, they filed a revision in the High Court. But this revision was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 13‑11‑1974, because he was of the view that the concurrent findings of the Court below was amply supported by evidence.
As learned counsel criticised the order of the High Court dismissing his revision in limine, we have examined it with the assistance of learned counsel and we find that the order has referred in detail to the evidence in support of the respondents claim. Therefore, the dispute in the revision turned solely on the appreciation of evidence and the revision was, therefore, rightly dismissed in limine.
There is no merit in this petition which is dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer