Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 67 of 1983, decided on 7th May, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court dated 12th January, 1983 in Civil Revision No. 758‑D of 1982).

‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 144‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115‑Adverse possession‑High Court, in revision, rightly holding that question relating to findings of fact could not tie gone into by High Court in revision‑Held, no interference by Supreme Court was called for in circumstances and petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Nisar Ahmad Butt, Advocate instructed by S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.

M. Anwar Bhinder, Advocate instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 7th May, 1983.

This petition for leave to appeal is from the judgment dated 12‑1‑1983 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore. High Court in Civil Revision No. 758‑D of 1982.

The proceedings culminating in the judgment of the High Court were initiated by the petitioner through a suit in which declaration was sought by him to the effect that he had become owner of the disputed property by virtue of adverse possession. It was also averred incons1stently that the petitioner had purchased the property in suit in 1961 for a consideration of Rs. 5,000, from one Fazal Din. The respondent contested the suit and pleaded that the petitioner was a tenant under him and that the suit in question was filed as a counterblast to the ejectment proceedings already initiated by him against the petitioner.

On the pleadings of the parties, several issues were framed but the contest was confined to one issue with regard to adverse possession of the disputed property as claimed by the petitioner. The said issue was decided against the petitioner and the suit was dismissed on 21‑5‑1980. The petitioner's appeal against the said judgment and decree was also dismissed by the learned District Judge on 15‑3‑1981. The petitioner thereupon filed an application for revision in the High Court challenging the propriety of the appellate judgment of the learned Additional District Judge which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.

The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were duly considered by the learned High Court and it was held that the same related to findings of fact which could not be gone into in revisional jurisdiction.

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and undoubtedly the controversy involved in the case relates to questions of fact which were rightly found by the learned High Court to be outside the purview of revisional jurisdiction.

In the circumstances, no interference is called for. The petition has no merits and is dismissed accordingly.

M. Z. M. 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.