Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Mr. Shamshad Ahmad Bajwa, Advocate for Respondent No. 1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----S. 115--Civil revision--Exchange was recovered--Concurrent findings--Non-suited on basis of admission made by petitioner--I have gone through evidence of petitioner (PW-1) and find that he conceded respondent’s case and even accused proforma Respondent No. 3 of jeopardizing petitioners’ suit by entering into transaction of exchange/sale in respect of land in dispute--Courts below have non-suited petitioners on this ground--Counsel for petitioners has been unable to establish otherwise from record--Even otherwise, counsel for petitioners has been unable to establish any other ground warranting interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, in concurrent findings of fact arrived at by Courts below. ORDER The instant revision petition under Section 115, of the CPC, is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28.06.2013, passed by the Civil Judge Class-II, Sialkot, and the judgment and decree, dated 12.04.2016, passed by the Additional District Judge, Sialkot, whereby the petitioners’ suit, against Respondent No. 1, for possession, in respect of the land in dispute, after demolition of the super-structure raised thereon and perpetual injunction, has been concurrently dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the land in dispute, fully described in Para-1 of the petition, is owned by the petitioners and the pro forma Respondents No. 2 to 5. However, since the pro forma respondents refused to join the petitioners, therefore, they were impleaded as pro forma defendants/ respondents. 3. Further submits that Respondent No. 1 has illegally occupied the land in dispute. The petitioners were able to establish this fact on the record. However, the learned Courts below by misreading and non-reading of the evidence have dismissed the petitioners’ suit. 4. Further submits that the learned Courts below failed to appreciate that Respondent No. 1 had taken over the possession of the land in dispute without the petitioners’ permission and has raised illegal construction thereon. The possession of the land in dispute is…

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