| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5639 2024 SLD 5639 2024 MLD 1508 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 58370 of 2021, heard on 13th May, 2024.
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Manzoor Hussain Dogar, Imran A. Mian and Haroon Dogar for Petitioner. Mian Qamar-ul-Islam and Janaan Gull for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 8(A) to 8(G), 10 to 13-B1 to 13-B6, 13-C to 13-F, 13-H, 13-J, 13-K, 14 to 19, 21-A to 21-E, 22-A to 22-G, 24, 25 and 39. Ex-parte against
Respondents No. 9-A, 9-B(i), 9-B(iii), 9-C, 13-G, 20, 28 to 37 vide order dated 21st November, 2022. Date of hearing: 13th May, 2024.
Civil Revision No. 58370 of 2021, heard on 13th May, 2024.
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Manzoor Hussain Dogar, Imran A. Mian and Haroon Dogar for Petitioner. Mian Qamar-ul-Islam and Janaan Gull for
Respondents Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 8(A) to 8(G), 10 to 13-B1 to 13-B6, 13-C to 13-F, 13-H, 13-J, 13-K, 14 to 19, 21-A to 21-E, 22-A to 22-G, 24, 25 and 39. Ex-parte against
Respondents No. 9-A, 9-B(i), 9-B(iii), 9-C, 13-G, 20, 28 to 37 vide order dated 21st November, 2022. Date of hearing: 13th May, 2024.
MUBASHAR ALI SHAH---Petitioner
VERSUS
MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others---Respondents
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O. III, Rr. 1, 2 & S.115
Law: Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012
Section: 4
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. III, Rr. 1, 2 & S.115---Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012 (IV of 2013), S.4---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Suit for partition--Non-impleadment of all other co-owners as defendants---Effect---No claim of mesne profit in the suit---Competency of suit---Non-appearance of petitioner himself as a witness---Effect---Claim of the petitioner based on hearsay evidence--Validity---Petitioner did not implead all the co-owners in the suit, therefore, the suit was not maintainable and competent---Passing of preliminary decree in partition suit under Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012, (ACT) is not provided; therefore, without claiming mesne profit under the Act, the suit was not competent---Deposition of PW.1& PW.2 was based on hearsay, which had also rightly been disbelieved by the lower courts---Non-appearance of the petitioner himself in the witness box and not making deposition on oath also went against him--Courts below had rightly appreciated and evaluated evidence of the parties and had reached to a just conclusion, concurrently, that the petitioners had failed to prove their case by leading cogent, confidence inspiring and trustworthy evidence--Concurrent findings on record could not be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of C.P.C---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly. JUDGMENT SHAHID BILAL HASSAN, J.---Facts in concision are as such that Mubashar Ali Shah, the petitioner, instituted a suit for partition of the land falling in Khewat No.303/308, Khasra Nos.2/25/86 and 197/1 measuring 7-Kanals 3-Marlas (Residential) and Khewat No.304/309 comprising Khasra Nos.5/3/98, 4/1, measuring 2-Kanals 2-Marlas (Commercial), situated in Mauza Hujra Shah Muqeem, as per Register Haqdaran Zameen for the year 2002-03. It was asserted that the petitioner/plaintiff has his share measuring 04-Kanals 01-Marla out of 7Kanals 3-Marlas in the first mentioned Khewat No.303/308, while he is owner to the extent of 01-Kanals 04-Marlas in the second Khewat No.304/309 out of 02Kanals 02-Marlas, therefore, the partition decree may be passed in his favour. The suit was…
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