Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No. 591 of 1986, decided on 4th November,1986.

‑‑‑S. 115‑‑Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of‑‑Concurrent judgments of two Courts below based on relevant evidence on record, not suffering from legal infirmity, jurisdictional defect, illegality, material irregularity and misreading of evidence, held, could not be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction of High Court.

The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others P L D 1974 SC 151 and United Bank Ltd. Lahore v. Government of the Punjab and 2 others P L D 1982 Lah. 384 ref.

Khizar Hayat Khan Puniah for Petitioner.

On 5‑4‑1978, Dildar alias Dara, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he was still owner of the suit land and the sale‑deed dated 1‑4‑1977 in favour of Haq Nawaz and five others defendants/ petitioners, was fictitious, without consideration, void and ineffective upon his rights. The suit was resisted whereon eight issues were framed. The parties produced their evidence. The trial Court vide judgment and decree, dated 29‑1‑1986 decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved of this judgment and decree, Haq Nawaz and other defendants /petitioners filed appeal which was entrusted to learned Additional District Judge, Khanewal who dismissed the same on 25‑7‑1986, hence this revision.

2. Before me the learned counsel has challenged the findings of Courts below on issues Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. He maintained that the judgments of the Courts below suffer from misreading of evidence; that since the defendants /petitioners were/are in physical possession of the suit land, therefore, a suit for mere declaration of ownership was not competent under proviso 2 to section 42 of the Specific Relief Act; that the disputed sale‑deed being a registered document carries presumption of truth and such question of mala fide or malice on the part of the petitioners does not arise. Reliance has been placed on case titled The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1974 S C 151 and United Bank Ltd. Lahore v. Government of the Punjab and 2 others P L D 1982 Lah. 384.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel with care. I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with him. The learned counsel has not been able to point out any misreading of any material evidence by the Courts below. The statements of the witnesses do not suffer from material contradictions or discrepancies. Except for minor and immaterial discrepancies here and there, the learned counsel has not been able to point out any material contradictions which may effect the veracity of the witnesses. The contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel that the plaintiff's witnesses had stated that;

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->< [if vml]>< --[if gte mso 9]>

Whereas the Doctor stated that:--

< --[if gte vml 1]> < [endif]-->< [if vml]>< --[if gte mso 9]>

does not seem to be of any consequence. The learned Courts below have applied conscious mind to the relevant evidence and have given sound and cogent reasons in support of their findings on the aforesaid issues. The judgments of the Courts below do not suffer from legal infirmity jurisdictional defect, illegality or material irregularity. The submissions made by the learned counsel do not warrant interference with the impugned judgments and decrees in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. The case‑law relied upon by the learned counsel is quite distinguishable and is not applicable to this case.

4. For what has been said above, there being no merits, the petition is dismissed in limine.

H . B . T . / H‑4/L Revision petition 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.