Find a Lawyer

AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 149‑R of 1982, decided on 16th November, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 8‑6‑1982, in R. S. A. 89 of 1982).

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑

‑‑ S. 42‑Declaratory suit‑Relief refused to petitioner on ground that be failed to satisfy normal standard for obtaining a finding of fact with regard to alleged damage to his house on account of an abandoned well (bouli) constructed during Muslim rule in India‑‑Effort being to re‑open case on question of finding of fact for which no justification existed, petition, held, merited dismissal‑However although petitioner failed to establish specific damage allegedly caused by concerned respondents possibly could not be excluded of petitioner suffering damage in future‑Respondent's counsel unable to show it not being responsibility of authority concerned to keep bout in such condition as not to cause any damage or nuisance to petitioner and other residents of locality‑ Respondent's counsel undertaking to inform concerned authority to do needful in matter, petitioner's counsel not pressing petition any further, hence petition dismissed.

Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

M. Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 16th November, 1982.

‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 8‑6‑1982 of the Lahore High Court ; whereby the petitioner's regular second appeal, arising out of a suit for damages, was dismissed.

After hearing the learned counsel in support of the petition, we find that the relief was refused to the petitioner on the ground that he had failed to satisfy the normal standard for obtaining a finding of fact, with regard to an alleged damage to his house, on account of an abandoned well called bouli, which it seems was constructed during Muslim Rule over India. As the effort is to re‑open the case on question of finding of fact for which was find no justification, therefore, this petition merits dismissal. However, while hearing the arguments we have noticed that although the petitioner has failed to establish the specific damage allegedly caused by the concerned respondents, a possibility that he might suffer damage in future may not be excluded. Learned counsel for the respondents/caveators was unable to show that it was not the responsibility of the authority concerned to keep the bouli in such a condition as not to cause any damage or nuisance to the petitioner and other residents of the locality. That being the case, he undertook to inform the concerned authority to do the needful in this behalf. On this, the learned counsel for the petitioner, did not press the petition any further. The same accordingly is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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