Case Details

Citation(s)
1992 SLD 729 = 1992 CLC 172
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.182 of 1983, heard on 22nd October, 1991.
Presented By: Before Gul Zarin Kiani, J
Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan Gilani for Appellants. Mian Munawar Hussain assisted by Ch. Arshad Mahmood for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD SADIQ and others---Appellants

VERSUS

FAQIR MUHAMMAD ---Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 23 , 25 , 102(2)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ---OXLI, Rr.23 & 25---Appellate Court's failure to discuss evidence available on record for agreeing with Trial Court---Effect---Appellate Court, although was under obligation to have made a proper appraisement of evidence on record for adjudicating question of tenancy, yet such omission alone would not entitle defendants/appellants` to succeed for a remand for re-hearing of appeal---High Court, however, in order to avoid remitting of case again to lower Appellate Court and with the object to arrest further prolongation of final decision in the dispute brought to Court in March 1976, decided to look into the record itself so as to see whether any error was committed in regard to its reading and miscarriage of justice had taken place---High Court on thorough search and critical analysis was not able to discover any fault with the result reached in the impugned judgments---Remand was declined in circumstances. Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (M.L.R 115)--- ----Para. 25---West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.44---Pre emption suit ---Defendants/vendees taking plea that they being the tenants of land in dispute before purchase same was not amenable to pre-emptive right of pre-emptor/plaintiff---Defendants/vendees, during course of litigation, getting correction of Khasra Girdawari without impleading pre-emptor ---Effect---Pre emptor's suit for pre-emption being pending for trial in   Court, any order made by an outside agency for showing defendants/vendees as tenants in land in question, retrospectively would hit at his right and same could not have been passed without hearing him---Initiation of parallel proceedings for correction of revenue record when matter was sub judice in Civil Court and when the material sought to be produced before Revenue Authorities could also have been placed before Civil Court for its adjudication was a questionable affair losing much of its evidentiary value---Omission to produce copy of the order of Settlement Authority on the basis of which order for correction of Khasra Girdawari was passed would give rise to clear adverse inference against defendants/vendees. Punjab…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register