| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 2367 2002 SLD 2367 2002 PLD 190 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 406-D of 1990, heard on 22nd October, 2001
TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J
Abdul Aleem Qureshi for Petitioner. S.M. Hussain Khan for Respbndent
Civil Revision No. 406-D of 1990, heard on 22nd October, 2001
TANVIR BASHIR ANSARI, J
Abdul Aleem Qureshi for Petitioner. S.M. Hussain Khan for Respbndent
MUSHTAQ AHMAD
VS
MUHAMMAD ISMAIL
Law:
Section:
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)------Art. 33---Statement of referee---Nature---Object and purpose of reference under Art.33 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was to treat the statement of the referee as the statement of the party itself---Referee had to render his statement in accordance with his personal knowledge of the subject-matter of the dispute and he would not have to rely upon any extraneous material or circumstances---If the statement of the referee would fulfil said requirements, it would be deemed to be a statement of the parties as if they had made such statements themselves---Effect of such statement would be binding upon the parties---Reference under Art.33 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 contemplated only one referee who should make a statement according to his oven personal knowledge---Though, no restriction appeared to have been placed upon the number of referees to be appointed, but the rationale of the provision of law indicated that the appointment of more than one referee could lead to thwart very purpose of making a reference---Practice of appointing more than one referee could work to the detriment of the purpose for which referee was appointed---Statement made by one referee being binding upon the parties, decree based upon such statement could not be challenged by any party in appeal unless same was the result of fraud or misrepresentation. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---No illegality being discernible from the proceedings of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court, concurrent findings of both the Courts below not suffering from any legal infirmity could not be interfered with in revision by High Court. JUDGMENT The parties are real brothers. Muhammad Ismail respondent filed a suit for declaration that he is owner in possession of land described in detail in the plaint and that Mukhtar Ahmed petitioner is merely a Benami. In the alternative, he claimed adverse possession. 2. The facts as disclosed in the plaint are that one Muhammad Siddique not party to the proceedings on behalf of his brothers and Mukhtar Ahmed on his own behalf and on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 jointly…
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