Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 661 of 1975, decided on 6th December, 1981.

(Against the judgment and decree dated 16th July, 1975 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Regular First Appeal No. 120 of 1961).

‑‑Art. 185 (3)‑‑Leave to appeal sought on grounds of there being in fact no concurrent findings of fact, material documents having been ignored, irrelevant considerations made basis of decisions and registered body having control over mosque not impleaded as party‑Case, held, requires a further examination in Supreme Court‑Leave to appeal granted.‑[Leave to appeal]

Mian Mahmud Ali Kasuri, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Rahman, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1

Sh. Shaukat Ali, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmed, Advocate‑or‑Record for Respondent No. 2.

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 to 6.

Date of hearing : 6th December, 1981.

‑‑A mosque built over Government land situated in Ghalla Mandi Jaranwala, District Lyallpur (now Faisalabad) has been the subject‑matter of litigation between the parties. The respondents who were the plaintiffs instituted a suit under section 92, C. P. C. for a scheme of administration of the mosque. It was resisted and contested by the peti tioners, as defendants. On the two issues on merits the learned District Judge recorded the finding in the following words: ‑

"My finding on these two issues is that there is no positive evidence in support of either issues, but the probabilities are that the financing was done by the arhtis of ghalla mandi though the actual building was entrusted to Khan Muhammad."

2. In settling the scheme and appointing the Board of Management ex‑officio appointments were made of (i) Tehsildar, Jaranwala, (ii) Doctor incharge Civil Hospital, Jaranwala, (iii) S. H. O. Jaranwala, (iv) Vice‑Chairman of Municipal Committee, Jaranwala, (v) Chairman of the Committee, Jaranwala without indicating that they had to be Muslims.

3. The learned Judge in the High Court dealing with the first appeal varied this finding of fact recorded by the District Judge by holding that‑

"The respondents have therefore successfully discharged their onus and proved issue No. 5 whereas the appellants could not prove issue No. 6."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave to appeal on the grounds that there is in fact no concurrent finding of fact recorded, that material documents have been altogether ignored, and irrelevant considera tions made the basis of decision and that a registered body having control over the affairs of the mosque was not impleaded as a party.

5. We consider that the case requires a fuller examination in this Court. Leave to appeal is therefore granted. Security Rs. 2,500. Interim order already made by this Court with regard to the management of the mosque to continue. The mosque to be kept in proper repair without prejudice to the claim of either party.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.