| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 2564 2024 SLD 2564 2024 YLR 493 |
Lahore High Court
R.S.A. No. 43 and C. R. No. 663 of 2014, decided on 7thJuly, 2023. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2023.
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
Sheikh Naveed Shehryar and Sheikh Usman Karim-ud-Din for Appellant. Ms. Safina Safdar Bhatti for Petitioner (in Civil Revision No. 663 of 2014). Malik Ghulam-us-Syeddain for
Respondent No. 1 (in R.S.A. No. 43 of 2014 and Civil Revision No. 663 of 2014). R
R.S.A. No. 43 and C. R. No. 663 of 2014, decided on 7thJuly, 2023. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2023.
Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad, J
Sheikh Naveed Shehryar and Sheikh Usman Karim-ud-Din for Appellant. Ms. Safina Safdar Bhatti for Petitioner (in Civil Revision No. 663 of 2014). Malik Ghulam-us-Syeddain for
Respondent No. 1 (in R.S.A. No. 43 of 2014 and Civil Revision No. 663 of 2014). R
Mst. KHURSHEED BEGUM (deceased) through Legal Heirs---Appellant
VERSUS
ABDUL WAHID NASIM and 3 others---Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42,54
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 100
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----Ss. 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100---Second appeal---Maintainability---Contradictory stance---Appellant/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit property purchased in the name of her son as Benamidar, who sold the property to respondent/defendant---Both the Court below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by appellant/ plaintiff---Validity---Stances in pleadings and evidence of suits filed by appellant/ plaintiff and respondent/defendant were in many-fold varying from stances in suit filed by son of appellant/plaintiff---In order to maintain possession over suit property appellant/plaintiff and her son were not reluctant even to mislead the Courts and they had remained successful in such design for 25 years---Miseries of execution were yet to start---Witnesses of appellant/plaintiff and her son were untruthful, who had been jumping from one stance to another and by giving implausible as well as self-contradictory statements, lost credibility and on the basis of such evidence any finding in their favour would be unsafe---Decisions of two Courts below, were not found against any law or usage having force of law or defective in any manner, which was essential to successfully maintain regular second appeal, under S. 100, C.P.C.---Not only was the conduct of son of appellant/plaintiff unconscionable, who maintained two different stances in two suits, disentitling him from equitable relief but at the same time his case was barred by limitation---High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below---Second appeal was dismissed accordingly. Jan Baz and 10 others v. Shah Nawaz and 2 others 2017 YLR Note 215; Abdul Qadeer v. Ashiq Ali and 2 others 2006 YLR 2900; Jhanda and 3 others v. Maulvi Mukhtar Ahmad and another 2007 YLR 2493; Muhammad Qasim v. Wazir through L.Rs 2007 MLD 1086; Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi v. Syed Rashid Arshad and others PLD 2015 SC 212; Nasrullah Khan and another v. Mst. Khairunnisa and others 2020 SCMR 2101; Pir Bux and others v. Ghulam Rasool and others PLD 1997 Kar. 113; Muhammad Nawaz Minhas and others v Mst. Surriya Sabir Minhas and others 2009…
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