Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2503 2014 SLD 2503 2014 YLR 931
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 15 of 2013, decided on 21st November, 2013
MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J
Abdul Wali Khan for Petitioners. Gul Hayat Khan for
Respondents

MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN and others

VS

MUSHARAF KHAN and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S.115---New ground raised at revision stage for the first time---Validity---Plea neither raised in the written statement nor taken before trial Court, could not be entertained or considered in the revisional jurisdiction of High Court. Khan and others v. Province of Punjab and others 2005 SCMR 1135 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.VI, R.7---Departure from pleadings---Validity---Parties cannot go beyond its pleadings and could not make a departure therefrom. Khan and others v. Province of Punjab and others 2005 SCMR 1135 rel. JUDGMENT MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.---This revision petition is directed against judgment and decree dated 16-10-2012, passed by learned Addl: District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi, Mastuj at Booni, whereby the appeal filed by petitioners was dismissed and judgment and decree dated 13-2-2012, passed by learned trial Court was maintained. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the respondents Nos.1 to 4, filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession fully described in the heading of the plaint. The suit was contested by petitioners and after conclusion of trial, the same was decreed by the learned trial Court. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners preferred appeal, which had been dismissed through impugned judgment, 'hence the instant revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the respondents failed to prove their case through cogent and reliable evidence whereas the petitioner proved his defence through documentary evidence in the shape of Exh.DW.1/3. It was also contended that the property remained in ownership and possession of the petitioner for the last 32 years, therefore the suit filed against the petitioner was hopelessly time barred. It was further contended that present is a case of misreading and non-reading of material evidence, which resulted into wrong conclusion, hence the impugned judgments and decrees are not maintainable. 4. Conversely, learned counsel for respondents contended that the plea taken by petitioners with respect to the suit property as that to be inherited by them from their predecessor has been introduced…
🔒
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