| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2010 SLG 1312 2010 SLD 1312 2010 MLD 1731 |
Quetta High Court
Civil Revision No. 268 of 2006, decision Dated: 25-02-2010. Hearing Dated: 21-10-2009.
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Khushnood
Respondent(s) by: Syed Ayaz Zahoor
Civil Revision No. 268 of 2006, decision Dated: 25-02-2010. Hearing Dated: 21-10-2009.
MRS. SYEDA TAHIRA SAFDAR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Khushnood
Respondent(s) by: Syed Ayaz Zahoor
NOOR MUHAMMAD AND 2 OTHERS
VS
NOORUDDIN AND 3 OTHERS
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VII,R.11
Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11---Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and easement---Plaintiffs claimed their right ofeasement in respect of use of water for irrigating their lands through same water-course and right of way through a passage allegedly situated on lands owned by the defendants for a period of more than 100 years---Plaintiffs though had asserted existence of their right, but admitted non-entering of both these amenities in record of rights, despite the fact that as per their own showing settlement was carried out in the area in year, 1958---Burden was upon the plaintiffs to firstly prove existence of disputed watercourse and passage and thereafter their right to use the same, without any obstruction from side of defendants, but they had failed to discharge the same---Trial Court had failed to assess the material present on record, in its true perspective and came to the conclusion which was not in accordance with facts brought on record---Plaintiffs though titled their suit for declaration, permanent injunction and easement, but in the contents of the plaint they did not seek declaration in respect of their right, rather only prayed for injunction---Trial Court had failed to frame any issue in respect of legal objections raised by the defendants in their written statement to the extent of non joinder of parties, non-payment of proper court fee, improper description of property in question, thereby suit was liable to be dismissed under O. VII, R.11, C. P. C. ---Appellate Court despite pointing out the defects of pleadings of the plaintiffs and misappreciation of real matter in dispute by the Trial Court, relied on findings and decision taken by the Trial Court---Appellate Court, neither considered the grounds raised by the defendants in memo of appeal, nor discussed the evidence recorded by the Trial Court and decision arrived thereby and came to the conclusion without assigning reasons---Both Appellate Court and the Trial Court had failed to decide the issues on material present on record, thereby had come to the conclusion not based on facts and evidence---Impugned s…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492