Find a Lawyer

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 9‑‑Suit for recovery of possession‑‑Finding of fact‑‑Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction‑ Question whether respondent was dispossessed by petitioner within 6 months against his consent, being question of fact concurrent finding of fact arrived at by two Courts below on that question being based on sound reasons, not suffering from any legal infirmity, held, could not be interfered with in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.

Messrs A.R. Muhammad Siddiq v. The Shafi High School Board 1983 C L C 507 ref.

Sh. Zia‑ud‑Din Ahmad Qamar for Petitioner. M.Z. Khan Barkifor Respondents.

Date of hearing: 17th September, 1986.

Through this Constitutional Petition Abdul Ghafoor petitioner wants this Court to declare the orders dated 21‑7‑1986 of learned Additional District Judge, Vehari and judgment and decree dated 18‑5‑1986 of learned Civil Judge, Vehari, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The facts leading up to this petition briefly are, that on 31‑7‑1983, Nazir Ahmad respondent No.1 filed a suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act wherein he averred that he was dispossessed by Abdul Ghafoor and others without his consent on 3‑6‑1983. The suit was resisted whereon issues were framed. The parties led their evidence. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree, dated 18‑5‑1986 decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment and decree, Abdul Ghafoor petitioner filed revision before the learned District Judge which was entrusted to learned Additional District Judge who vide his judgment dated 21‑7‑1986, dismissed the same, hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge on the ground that the same was not competent under section 115, C.P.C., whereas the revision was quite competent under the law. Reliance has been placed on case Messrs A.R. Muhammad Siddiq v. The Shafi High School Board, reported as 1983 C L C 507; that the learned Additional District Judge has given no reason in support of his decision; that the finding of the learned appellate Court is based on misreading of evidence; that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land since 1947 and as such, the respondents are not entitled to the restoration of the same under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act and under Notification No. 2070‑82/2669, dated 10‑8‑1982 and that there is nothing on record to show that Nazir Ahmad respondent was dispossessed without his consent.

4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. I find that most of the submissions made by the learned counsel relate to appreciation of evidence; that I do not desire to interfere with the appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court; that the learned Additional District Judge while deciding the revision has given sufficient reason. The operative part of the judgment reads as under:‑

"The careful perusal of the record shows that the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. The petitioner is not conferred with any proprietary right of the disputed land. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is pending in the Honourable High Court and the petitioner has become a party in the writ petition. He has frankly submitted that no stay order has been issued by the Honourable High Court, so far. This being the factual position of the case, the petitioner has no case on merits and the revision petition is not competent and the same is dismissed."

The perusal of the order shows that the revision was not dismissed on the ground of its non‑maintainability but was decided on merits: that the question whether respondent No.1 was dispossessed within 6 months against his consent is a question of fact; that the Courts below have given sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by them; that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity and that the Courts below have not flouted the provisions A of any relevant law.

5. For what has been said above, it is not a fit case for interference with the impugned judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge and judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, in exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.