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 Revision No. 151/D of 1984, decided on 6th May, 1982.
‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Revisional jurisdiction being discretionary, held, would be declined where findings recorded by First Appellate Court do not call for interference in fact, and circumstances of case in absence of jurisdictional error.
Ch. Abdul Sattar Goraya for Petitioner.
Syed Kabir Mahmood for Respondent.
This revision petition has been filed to assail the judgment and decree of a learned Additional District Judge, who after perusal of the record and appreciating the evidence of parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of facts and sold the Ihata in dispute posing himself to be owner of the same and did not disclose in the agreement that the Ihata was owned by the Provincial Government and that he had no subsisting right to sell the property. In such a situation, the learned Additional District Judge, after holding the agreement to be void has observed that where under a void agreement a party has received benefit, it is bound to restore it.
2. I have held a pre‑admission hearing and after hearing the learned counsel, I do not think this is a fit case for exercise of my discretionary revisional jurisdiction and at any rate, the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge do not call for any interference in the facts and circumstances of this case in the absence of a jurisdictional error.
The result is that this revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
A.A Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer