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 Revision No. 56‑D of 1983, decided on 12th February, 1983.
‑‑ S. 3‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (VI of 1912), S. 19‑Contention that property being State land, agreement between parties for' disposal of appeal on special oath hit by S. 19‑Held, matter having been decided on special oath, revision against such does'
Mian Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner,
Manzoor Hussain, respondent, filed a suit for specific performance against Muhammad Hussain, petitioner and the Provincial Government. The suit was contested by the petitioner/plaintiff. The trial Court decreed the suit on 21st June, 1978 subject to the petitioner herein, depositing a balance of the sale, price i. e. Rs. 1.2,772 upto 20th July, 1978.
2. Feeling dissatisfied‑Muhammad Hussain, petitioner-defendant. filed appeal before the High Court but thereafter since pecuniary jurisdic tion of the District Judge was raised to Rs. 50,000, the appeal was transmitted to the District Judge, Multan, who entrusted the same to the Additional District Judge. When the case came up before the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, respondent Manzoor Hussain agreed to take special oath as proposed by Muhammad Hussain, petitioner/appellant therein, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly. Hence this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the dispu ted property was a State land the agreement between the parties being bit by section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lauds Act the impugned judgment and decree of the appellate Court is not maintainable.
4. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel in the light of the record available before me. I find that the matter having been decided on special oath as agreed upon between the parties, this revision does not lie. Respondent No. 1, took oath on the Holy Quran as proposed by the petitioner, herein, and as such the petitioner cannot be allowed to go back.
5. For what has been stated above there being no merit, the revision is dismissed in limine.
M. A. K. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer