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 Petition No. 94‑R of 1983, decided on 13th November, 1983.
(From the order dated 22‑2‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, passed in Civil Revision No. 214/D of 1982).
----S. 115‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑Revision sought on ground of misreading of evidence but petitioner falling to point out any misreading and all petitioner wanted was re‑apprecia tion of evidence‑High Court, held, justified in dismissing revision in limine and declining to undertake such re‑appreciation of evidence in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.‑[Evidence].
Ch. Abdur Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Data of hearing . 13th November, 1983.
The dispute relates to share in the property originally held by Adam Khan. According to the second Revenue Settle ment and the Jamabandi for the year 1901‑1902 the property was owned jointly by the four sons of Adam Khan, namely, Nasar Khan, Muhammad Khan and Mian Khan the predecessors‑in‑interest of the petitioners, and Allah Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents. However, in the third Revenue Settlement, the name of Allah Khan did not appear. The heirs of Allah Khan brought a suit out 21‑7‑1976 for a declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of land treasuring 408 Kanals and 13 Marlas. The suit was decreed on 29‑10‑1980, against which the petitioners filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Attock on 5‑3‑1982. The appellate Court held that the entire land belonging to Adam Khan devolved upon his sons as shown in the pedigree‑table and that, therefore, the respon dents being the descendants of Allah Khan, a son of Adam Khan, are entitled to get 1/4th share out of the land. The appellate Court noted that no mutation had been placed on record to show that Allah Khan had alienated his share to his other brothers and concluded that the land had continued to be in the joint Khata and the parties were in possession to the extent of their shares.
2. The petitioners then came to the High Court in revision and pressed their case on the ground of misreading of evidence but as they failed to point out ashy misreading and all they wanted was a re‑appreciation of the evidence, the High Court declined to undertake the exercise in the revisional jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed the revision in limine.
3. In the background of the case and after hearing learned counsel, we do not find the order of the High Court open to exception. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.
M.Z. M. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer