| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 5652 2024 SLD 5652 2024 MLD 1709 |
Lahore High Court
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad and others---Respondents Civil Revision No. 4663 of 2015, decided on 16th May, 2024.
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Shahid Aziz Anjum and Imran A. Mian for the Petitioners. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional Advocate General Punjab, for
Respondents. Muhammad Ali Ramay, Abbas Ali Cheema and Janaan Gull for the legal heirs of
Respondent No. 2.
Respondents Nos. 3 to 22 ex-parte on 25th April, 2024. Date of hearing: 16th May, 2024.
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad and others---Respondents Civil Revision No. 4663 of 2015, decided on 16th May, 2024.
Before Shahid Bilal Hassan, J
Shahid Aziz Anjum and Imran A. Mian for the Petitioners. Qamar Zaman Qureshi, Additional Advocate General Punjab, for
Respondents. Muhammad Ali Ramay, Abbas Ali Cheema and Janaan Gull for the legal heirs of
Respondent No. 2.
Respondents Nos. 3 to 22 ex-parte on 25th April, 2024. Date of hearing: 16th May, 2024.
MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD and another---Petitioners
VERSUS
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer (Revenue), Faisalabad and others---Respondents
Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section: 42
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115 & O.XXIII Rr.1 (2), (3), 2--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), First Sched., Art.120---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.4---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Mutation of inheritance---Death of daughter before the death of her father---Benefit of S.4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961---Concurrent findings of both the courts below---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Withdrawal of earlier suit on the basis of settlement without any specific permission to institute the suit afresh---Filing of a fresh suit---Legality---No permission was sought for filing the suit afresh, therefore, the petitioners were precluded from instituting the fresh suit--Fresh suit was barred by limitation, because the fresh suit was filed after about 08 years of the withdrawal of earlier suit---Daughter (predecessor of petitioners) having died prior to death of her father was rightly excluded from the inheritance mutation as to legacy of her father, because at that time Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 had not been promulgated and enacted; therefore, no benefit of S.4 of the Ordinance ibid was available to the petitioners---Courts below had rightly appreciated and evaluated evidence of the parties and had reached a just conclusion, concurrently, that the petitioners had failed to prove their case by leading cogent, confidence inspiring and trustworthy evidence, thus, concurrent findings on record could not be disturbed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C.--Judgments and decrees passed by the courts below were upheld---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly.Muhammad Yar (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Amin (Deceased) through L.Rs. and others 2013 SCMR 464; Khawaja Bashir Ahmed and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Martrade Shipping and Transport and others PLD 2021 SC 373; Mst. Zaitoon Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another 2014 SCMR 1469; Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Cantt. Board Rawalpindi v. Ikhlaq Ahmed and others 2014 SCMR 161; Muhammad Farid Khan v. Muhammad Ibrahim and others 2017 SCMR 679;…
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