Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction, exercise of---Findings of Trial Court on certain issues, not assailed before Appellate Court below, could not be assailed at stage of revision before High Court. Muhanrrnad Farooq Qureshi Chishti for Petitioners. Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Respondents Nos.1and 2. Nemo for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 17th February, 1991. JUDGMENT Dispute involved in this civil revision has arisen out of a suit filed by the Petitioners, Noora and others, against the respondents, Umar Hay at and others, alleging that the petitioners and respondents Nos.2 and 3, namely, Khadim Hussain and Mst. Sabhai, were owners of certain land. Before institution of the said suit, Suit No.414 of 1969, brought by respondent No.1, Umar Hayat, claiming to be owner of the said land, under a sale, was decreed in his favour. Validity of the decree passed in the suit of C1mar Hayat was also challenged by the petitioners in their suit which was resisted by the respondents tin several grounds. He also prayed tier special costs. The following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:-------- Whether the land in dispute is incorrectly described? If so, what was the correct description? Whether the suit is barred under section 12(2) of C.P.C. Whether the suit is not competent in its present form find the same is incorrectly valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction? If so, what is the correct valuation ? Whether the suit is within limitation?   Whether the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.2 and 3 are owners in possession of the land in dispute ? Whether the decree dated 6-12-1969 in Suit No.414 of 1969 titled Umar Hayat v. Hakman and others, and the consequent Mutation No.206 are collusive, fictitious, against law and fact, without consideration, void and inoperative ? Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false, frivolous and vexatious and on that account the defendants are entitled to special costs? If so, to what extent ? Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct to file the present suit,? (8-A) Whether the impugned mutation is hit by M L R 115 and hence is void ? Relief. The learned Civil Judge,…