Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 100 of 1975, decided on 23rd November, 1985.

---S. 115--Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of--Where Courts below have applied their conscious mind to relevant evidence, giving sound and cogent reasons in support of their decisions, High Court, held, would decline to interfere in absence of misreading or non-reading to evidence in its revisional jurisdiction.

Rana Abdul Hamid Khan for Petitioner.

M. Hanif Khatana for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1985.

The facts giving rise to this revision briefly are that on 14-3-1963 Mst. Ghafooran Bibi respondent No. 1 filed suit for declaration to the effect that she was owner in occupation of the suit land and Mutations Nos. 296 of 1963 and 191, 313 and 780 of 1958 being illegal were ineffective against her rights. During the pendency of the suit, on 9-1-1967, an application alongwith compromise deed Exh. AW1/1 and receipt AW1/2 was filed on behalf of Mst. Ghafooran that the parties had entered into a compromise. The application was fixed on 11-1-1969 for proper orders. The parties did not appear on that day and the hearing of the application was adjourned for a date already fixed for the hearing of the main case. On 5-2-1969 Sada, petitioner /defendant moved application for the decision of the case in the light of the compromise. The application was resisted where upon the learned trial Court framed following issue:

(1) Whether the plaintiff entered into compromise with defendants Nos. 3 and 4 regarding the present suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed on that score

To prove this issue, the present petitioner produced Nizam Din petition-writer A.W. 1, Ghulam Mustafa A.W. 2 and he appeared as A.W. 3. Compromise deed A.W.4/1 and receipt A.W.1/2 were also produced. In rebuttal Mst. Ghafooran appeared as R.W. 1. The learned trial Court dismissed the application for recording the compromise on 14-12-1971. Feeling aggrieved of this order, Sada petitioner/ defendant filed appeal which was entrusted to Additional District Judge, Lyallpur who dismissed the same on 9-12-1974, hence this revision.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner had successfully proved the issue through the statement of his witnesses and compromise deed A.W.1/1, therefore, the learned trial Court should have dismissed the suit as having been withdrawn. Conversely the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the orders of the learned Courts below.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that the issue is an issue of fact. The learned Courts below have applied their conscious mind to the relevant evidence and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of their decisions. The learned counsel has failed to point out any misreading/non-reading of the evidence by the Courts below. Since the Courts below were not satisfied that the suit had been adjusted wholly or partially by any lawful compromise, therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the application of the petitioner and the learned appellate Court has very rightly dismissed the appeal. The judgment of the learned Courts below do not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity.

4. For what has been stated above, I do not see any justification to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The revision is dismissed leaving parties to bear their own costs.

A.A. 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.