Case Details

Citation(s)
2012 SLG 2625 2012 SLD 2625 2012 YLR 2625
Balochistan High Court
Civil Revision No. 161 of 2007, decided on 30th July, 2012. DATE of hearing: 29th June, 2012
MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J
Muhammad Ejaz Sawati for Petitioner. Mian Badar Munir for
Respondent. Amanullah Tareen, A.A.G. for the State

FIDA HUSSAIN

VS

GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another

Law:

Section:

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S.3---Limitation, question of---Duty of court---Scope---Such question would not be left to pleadings of parties, rather legal obligation of court would be to be vigilant regarding such question as to whether proceedings brought before court were within time. PLD 1985 SC 153 and 2007 SCMR 621 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---Revision---Concurrent findings of courts below---Interference in such findings by High Court---Scope---High Court could not disturb such findings in absence of glaring irregularity in proceed-ings or misreading or non-reading of evidence available on record. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD NOOR MESKANZAI, J.---The learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that the judgment passed by the lower forums suffers from material irregularity. It was further maintained that the evidences available on record were misconstructed, misread and facts have been misappreciated. The learned trial Court considered Exh.D/l, D/2 and 0/3 in violation of Article 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Petitioner has paid remaining Rs. 35,000 (Rupees thirty five thousand) to Yawar Ali at the instance of respondent and thus the lower forums have not dealt with the matter properly. It was prayed that petition may be accepted and both the judgments may be set aside. The suit filed by the petitioner may be decreed in the terms of plaint. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions so advanced and submitted that both the courts below after proper appraisal of material available on record have rightly disbelieved the plaintiff's version. The petitioner/plaintiff failed to produce tangible evidence in support of his claim, besides the suit was hopelessly barred by time. I have considered the respective contentions of the learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. The perusal of the record reflects that the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance and permanent injunction. Both the parties admit the execution of document dated 30th July, 1984 whereby the property bearing Khasra No. 1129/1 Mutation No. 361, measuring 1292 Sq.Ft. situated at Ward No. 45…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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