| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 3141 2016 SLD 3141 2016 MLD 988 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 923 of 1996, decided on 28th April, 2015. Date of hearing: 28th April, 2015.
AMIN-UD-DINN KHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Aurengzaib Khan, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for Petitioners. Abdul Rashid Sheikh for
Respondents.
Civil Revision No. 923 of 1996, decided on 28th April, 2015. Date of hearing: 28th April, 2015.
AMIN-UD-DINN KHAN, JUSTICE
Muhammad Aurengzaib Khan, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for Petitioners. Abdul Rashid Sheikh for
Respondents.
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector and 2 OTHERS ERS
VS
ABDUL GHANI and OTHERS --Respondent
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --------- ----------O. XLI, R. 31 --------- Allotment of land --------- Points for determination --------- Scope --------- When plaintiff did not appear as his witness at the time of affirmative evidence and his statement was recorded after the evidence of defendant then said statement could only be read as rebuttal evidence and not as affirmative evidence --------- Findings recorded by the Trial Court were based on the evidence available on record --------- Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were in violation of procedure provided under O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C. --------- Appellate Court was required to record issue-wise findings or to frame point for determination --------- Neither findings had been recorded issue-wise nor point for determination had been framed --------- Judgment passed by the Appellate Court was defective --------- Nothing was available on record as to when suit land was allotted/adjusted in favour of plaintiffs --------- Plaintiffs had not produced any evidence to prove that impugned order had been passed by the revenue authorities or mutation in favour of defendant was against the facts and was illegal --------- Findings recorded by the Appellate Court were not sustainable under the law --------- Plaintiffs had failed to prove their case as pleaded by them --------- Impugned and decree passed by the Appellate Court were set aside and those of Trial Court were restored --------- Revision was allowed in circumstances. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --------- ----------S. 115 --------- Revision petition --------- Office objection --------- Limitation --------- When revision was initially filed within the prescribed period of limitation and office raised objection and time for removing objection if consumed more than the time granted by the court then revision could not be dismissed as barred by time. Hafeez Ahmad and others v. Civil Judge, Lahore and others PLD 2012 SC 400 and Muhammad Boota v. Basharat Ali PLD 2014 Lah. 1 rel. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN, JUSTICE:---------- Through this civil revision the petitioners-defendants have challenged the judgment and decree dated…
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