Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.1872/D of 1983, decided on 18th August, 1984.

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Revision‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Conclusion arrived at by Court below based on finding of fact, held, not open to any exception in revision before High Court.

Ch. Muhammad Ismail for Petitioners.

Ch. M.Abdus Salim for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th June, 1984.

GHULAM MUJADDID MIRZA, J.‑

‑Muhammad Hayat son of Mirza Khan, Sipra by caste. resident of Maroolianwala, Tehsil 13halwal, District Sargodha filed suit for possession through pre‑emption of 9 Kanals of land in Khewat No.196, Khatauni No.1124, Killa No.23 of Square No.269, as described in Jamabandi for, the year 197.1‑75 of the said village.

2. Muhammad Hayat claimed his superior right on the, ground of his being collateral of the vendor and co‑sharer in the Khata of the suit land.

3. Farman Ali etc. contested the suit and raised many legal as well as factual objections.

4. The trial Court framed the following issues:‑‑

The trial Court found all the issues, except issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiff Issue No.5 was decided against him and on the basis of that the suit was dismissed.

5. Muhammad Hayat went in appeal, which was accepted by the Additional District Judge, Sargodha, who decreed the suit by his judgment dated 15‑11‑1983.

6. Farman Ali and others have now come in revision against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the appellate Court erred in law in upsetting the finding of the trial Court regarding issue No.5. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied on Madan Gopal and 4 others v. Maran Bepari and 3 others P L D 1969 S C 617.

8. I have considered this argument and have also gone through the above‑mentioned judgment, I am unable to agree with the learned counsel. The appellate Court after taking into consideration the relevant evidence came to the conclusion that the finding of trial Court 'on issue A No.5 was not correct. It was open to the appellate Court to re‑examine the entire evidence and while doing so it could take judicial notice o all relevant evidence. The conclusion arrived as such is a finding o fact which is not open to any exception in revision in the High Court.

9. The case cited by the learned counsel is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

l6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the civil revision. The same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

M. Y . H Revision 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.