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. 177‑D of 1985/BWP, decided on 8th February1986
--------S.9 Suit for declaration as to ownership/possession of land---- Plaintiff‑petitioner making an offer that if defendant‑respondent made a statement on Holy Qur'an that plaintiff was not in possession of land at time of institution of suit then suit might be dismissed and in case he did not take an oath then suit be decreed‑‑Defendant‑respondent taking oath and trial Court making a note, that compromise had been completed, and dismissed suit‑‑Plaintiff‑petitioner contending that statement of defendant‑respondent should have been recorded and when such statement was not recorded proceedings of trial Court were nullified‑ Since offer was accepted and accomplished contention, held, was without force and suit rightly dismissed by trial Court.
‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revision‑‑No illegality or material irregularity committed by lower Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction‑‑Revision dismissed.
S. Ashiq Hussain for Appellant.
Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 8th February, 1986.
The petitioner has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court for the quashment of the judgment and decree, dated 22‑4‑1985 and those of the learned District Judge, dated 27‑4‑1985.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the plaintiff‑petitioner brought a suit for a declaration to the effect that he was owner‑in- possession of the land in dispute and Mutation No. 1687 attested on 19‑5‑1977 was fictitious, void, inoperative and liable to be cancelled. The suit was contested by the respondents and on 7‑4‑1985, the plaintiff made an offer that in case Qaisar Khan, defendant No. 1 made a statement on the Holy Qur'an that the plaintiff was not in possession of this property at the time of the institution of this suit, then the suit may be dismissed and in case he does not take an oath, then the suit may be decreed. The learned counsel for the respondents accepted the said offer. It may be noted that Ghulam Nabi has thumb‑marked his statement while making the offer and his learned counsel also signed the said statement. 22‑4‑1985 was fixed for the oath of Qaisar Khan who took the proposed oath and the learned trial Court made a note that the compromise has been completed and Qaisar Khan took the oath. He dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.
3. It has been contended that the statement of Qaisar Khan should have been recorded and when such statement is not recorded the proceedings are nullified. I do not countenance this argument because the parties made a contract on 7‑4‑1985 to abide by the oath of Qaisar Khan. Qaisar Khan took the proposed oath which is evident from the note of the learned trial Court. Even if the statement of Qaisar Khan was not recorded in detail, the offer was accepted and accomplished and the suit of the plaintiff was rightly dismissed. I see no illegality or material irregularity committed by the learned lower Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction as envisaged under section 115, C . P. C and dismissed this revision petition with costs.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer