Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

  Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Suit for possession filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the ground that petitioners/defendants, were the licensee of the suit property---Trial Court while holding defendants/petitioners as illegal occupants dismissed the suit on ground that plaintiff could not prove his ownership---Appellate Court after considering entire evidence came to conclusion that plaintiff was able to prove his ownership and decreed the suit---Additional Commissioner (Rev.) in an earlier round of litigation had dismissed the appeal of the respondent and maintained the allotment of property in the name of plaintiff which order was available in evidence---Appellate Court in presence of such documentary evidence held rightly reversed the judgment of Trial Court---Revision was dismissed in limine. Haji Muhammad Zaman v. Zafar Ali Khan and others PLD 1986 SC 88 rel. Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Failure to furnish copies of documentary evidence ---Effect-- Petitioner neither furnished copies of documentary evidence produced before the Trial Court, nor filed any application for dispensation thereof---Held, revision petition, in view of such defects was liable to be dismissed. Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Luck Fruit Products PLD 1988 Lah. 329 rel. Muhammad Sharif Khokhar for Petitioners. Mufti Muhammad Tufail Gavindi for Respondent. ORDER This civil revision is directed against order dated 12-12-1992 of the Additional District Judge Sargodha decreeing the suit of respondent for possession in respect of disputed   land. Facts necessary for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent Muhammad Hussain filed a suit for possession of an Ihata measuring about one Kanal, as per details mentioned in the plaint, on the ground that petitioners were licensee of the suit property. The suit was resisted, written statement was filed and out of showing the allotment of disputed Khata in favour of respondent. Petitioner produced oral evidence D.W.1 Ghulam Rasool. D.W.2 Muhammad Aslam and D.W.3 as his own witness. The revision petition was still in motion when petitioners filed C.M.2-93 for permission to…