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. 12‑R of 1983, decided on 24th October, 1983.
(On appeal from the Judgment and order dated 7th November, 1982 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Civil Revision No. 618 of 1980).
---‑‑Art. 185 (3) ‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, r. 1-- Review petition for reversal of decree claimed on basis of a document allegedly discovered by petitioner‑‑‑Document in question in possession of petitioner for 15 years‑‑Finding that case did not fall under O. XLVII, r. 1, C. P. C. as it could not be contended that petitioner did not know of said document, held, based on cogent reasons‑‑Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date, of bearing: 24th October, 1983.
The dispute relates to house No. R/168, situate in Jhangi Mohallah, Rawalpindi. It belonged to Allah Diya, who died issueless in 1964. His widow Mst. Waziran sold it to Faqir Muhammad, the petitioner herein by a registered sale‑deed, dated 27th of August, 1974.
Muhammad Asghar claiming to be a nephew of Allah Diya filed a suit for partition and possession of his 3/4th share as being his nephew. The Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, decreed the suit on 16th of June, 1979, but on appeal the judgment and decree was reversed. No further proceedings were taken thereafter to challenge the appellate judgment. However, review petition was filed before the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, in which reversal of the decree was claimed on the basis of a document, allegedly discovered;, by Msr. Waziran, but the learned Additional District Judge held that she had the knowledge of the document as it was in her possession and that it had also been produced in some claim case before the Settlement authority. In this view of the matter, no case for review was made out on its basis. A revision was taken against this order to the High Court and the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the revision application, held
"The learned counsel also states before me that the document was in the record of Allah Diya who died in 1964. It then came in the possession and custody of Mst. Waziran, his widow, appellant No. 1. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that Mst. Waziran did not know of this document from 1964 till 1979. The case, thus, did riot fall under Order XLVII, rule 1, C. P. C. and there is no justifica tion for interference."
It is now urged before us that the document, which was executed as far back as on 26th of October, 1938, goes to establish the relationship of Muhammad Asghar as being a nephew of Allah Diya. A plain reading of this document shows that Shamsh Din the father of Allah Diya. had gifted a house to him; while reciting therein that he, had two step‑sons and two real sons on Whom he had already settled the property. There is nothing to show, that this Muhammad Asghar was the son of either of the two brothers of Allah Diya as their names are not mentioned. In this view of the matter, we do not see how this document will be of any assistance to the case of the petitioner, if, at all, it is to be taken into consideration. Aside from it, the High Court has given cogent reasons for upholding the order of the Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi.
Accordingly, we see no merit in this petition, which is 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