Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 414/R of 1985, decided on 21st January, 1986.
(On the appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3‑11‑1985 in Civil Revision No. 333/D of 1985).
‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal, grant of‑‑Plea that order upheld in Revision by High Court was based on misreading of evidence, repelled‑ Impugned order being based on proper reading of evidence, petition, held, devoid of any substance and dismissed.
Muhammad Munir Piracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st January, 1986.
‑By this petition leave is sought to appeal against the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 3‑11‑1985 passed in Civil Revision No. 333/1) of 1985.
2. Relevant facts are that House No.B‑III/313, 314, 315 and 316 in the town of Fatehjang was jointly allotted to Muhammad Abdullah, the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 to 4 and Muhammad Akbar son of Sher Muhammad respondent No.1 by the Deputy Rehabilitation Officer on 16‑6‑1956; that Abdullah and Muhammad Akbar both used the Deohri and staircase commonly; that on 28‑3‑1967 House No.S.III/313, 314 was transferred to Abdullah through a P.T.D. Similarly House No.S.III/315, 316 was transferred to Muhammad Akbar. After the transfer, it is alleged, that Abdullah and Muhammad Akbar continued using the Deohri and staircase jointly. However, in 1983 the respondent No.1 Muhammad Akbar brought a suit against Abdullah in the Court of Civil Judge, Attock for a declaration to the effect that the Deohri and staircase is part of the House No.B‑III/315, 316 and transferred to Muhammad Akbar respondent No.1 and that Abdullah had no right or claim to use the Deohri and the staircase and that the plaintiff has a right to partition his house by constructing a wall; and that Abduilah be restrained from interfering with the rights of the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff /petitioner. Appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge per order, dated 15‑7‑1985 Abdullah challenged this order before the High Court in Civil Revision No.333/D of 1985 which was dismissed, vide the impugned order, dated 3‑11‑1985.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Haveli in question was transferred to the parties in equal share, and, therefore, the impugned order is based on misreading of evidence on the record. We have heard the learned counsel. Having gone through the file we consider that the impugned order is based on proper reading of the evidence. We find no substance in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
M. I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer