Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1443 2023 SCMR 1402 2023 SLD 1443
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil appeal No. 1300 of 2019, decided on 3rd May, 2023.Date of hearing: 3rd May, 2023. (Against Judgment dated 12.03.2019 passed by the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench in Civil Revision No. 96-D of 2003)
Present: Sardar Tariq Masood and Muhammad Ali Mazhar, JJ
Anwar Mubeen Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellants. Nemo for
Respondents.

Mst. FAHEEMAN BEGUM (DECEASED) through L.Rs and others---Appellants

VS

ISLAM-UD-DIN (DECEASED) through L.Rs and others---Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Gift--- ----Gift/tamleek mutation---Proof---Immoveable property gifted by a sister to her brother---Respondents/donees had substantiated the fact of tamleek through cogent evidence in the form of the revenue record and witnesses produced before the Trial Court---Furthermore the suit of appellants was badly barred by time as the mutation in dispute was executed on 29.12.1981, whereas the suit was filed with a delay of almost 15 years on 3.5.1997---Appellant had no locus standi to challenge the legality of the (gift) mutation on a vague allegation of fraud when the donor had never challenged the same in her life time and the mutation had been given effect in the revenue record---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by appellants was rightly dismissed---Appeal was dismissed. Abdul Haq and another v. Mst. Surrya Begum 2002 SCMR 1330; Taj Muhammad Khan through L.Rs and another v. Mst. Munawar Jan and others 2009 SCMR 598 and Muhammad Rustam and another v. Mst. Makhan Jan and others 2013 SCMR 299 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope of such jurisdiction stated. If the concurrent findings recorded by the lower fora are found to be in violation of law, or based on misreading or non-reading of evidence, then they cannot be treated as being so sacrosanct or sanctified that they cannot be reversed by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction which is pre-eminently corrective and supervisory in nature. In fact, the Court in its revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), can even exercise its suo motu jurisdiction to correct any jurisdictive errors committed by a subordinate Court to ensure strict adherence to the safe administration of justice. The jurisdiction vested in the High Court under section 115, C.P.C. is to satisfy and reassure that the order is within its jurisdiction; the case is not one in which the Court ought to exercise jurisdiction and, in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, the Court has not acted illegally or in breach of some provision of law, or with material irregularity, or by committing some error of procedure…
🔒
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