Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeals Nos. 345 and 347 of 1977, decided on 10th June, 1984.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9‑3‑1977, passed in R. S. A. Nos. 763/62 and 751/62).

‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100‑Second appeal‑Dispute over land‑Dismissal of appeals by High Court on reasons including one going to root of case that suit itself was time- barred‑No ground shown for interference with finding of High Court‑Leave to appeal refused.

Sh. Ghias Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court with Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 10th June, 1984.

.‑‑This order will dispose of C. P. S. L. A. No. 345/77 and C. P. S. L. A. No. 347/77 as they are directed against the same judgment of the High Court; dated 9‑3‑1977, dismissing petitioner s two R. S. As. (Nos. 751/62 and 763/62). The main judgment has been recorded in R. S. A. No. 751/62 which contains the reasons for the dis missal of the two R. S. As.

2. The dispute relates to land measuring 7,650 kanals and 4 marlas situated in Village Choni Shimali Dagar, Tehsil and District Bhakkar. The present petitioner brought a suit for declaration as to his exclusive ownership of Shamlat on the ground that the village was founded by their ancestor, Khana who thus became owner of the entire land in village including Shamlat land. Later, the defendant obtained some land in the village for cultivation. The defendants (respondents) who broke land and brought it under cultivation became Ala‑cum‑Adna Malik. Some land was cultivat ed through payment of Jhuri and was held by cultivator as Adna Malik, under the plaintiff. But subsequently they claimed ownership of the portions of the Shamlat land also. This gave rise to a declaratory suit by the petitioner who claimed the ownership of the entire Shamlat land. The suit was decreed. Two separate appeals were filed against it, one by Zaman defendant and other by the remaining defendants. These were accepted and the suit was dismissed. Against this the petitioner filed 2 separate R. S. As which were rejected vide the impugned judgment, dated 9‑3‑1977 the main judgment 'laving been giver, in R. S. A. No. 751 / 62.

Hence the present petition.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through impugned judgment of the High Court. We find that one of the reasons for dismissal of the two appeals by the High Court, which goes to the root of the case was that the suit itself was time‑barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to satisfy us as to why this Court should interfere and set aside the abovenoted finding of the High Court.

Both the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.

S. Q. 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.