Case Details

Citation(s)
1955 SLG 174 1955 SLD 174 1955 PLD 1
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Revision No. 5 of 1953, decided on 10th May, 1954 against the order of Sub-Judge, Muzaffarabad dated 31st January, 1953.
ABDUL MAJID, C.J., NIAZ AHMAD AND ABDUL GHANI, JJ.
Sheikh Abdul Hamid, for Petitioner. Muhammad Shafi, for
Respondent.

FAQIR

VS

Khwaja HABIBULLAH

Law:

Section:

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115 (as adapted in Azad Kashmir),-Decree passed under Agriculturist Relief Act not open to revision on a pure question of fact. Notwithstanding that there is an additional clause (d) in section 115 of Civil P. C. of Kashmir State, which permits revision on a question of fact, a revision petition under section 115 of Civil P. C. as in force in Azad Kashmir in respect of a decree under Agriculturist Relief Act on a pure question of fact is not competent. JUDGMENT ABDUL MAJID, C. J.-This is an application in revision from the decree passed against the petitioner who claimed to be an agriculturist. The Sub-Judge exercised the powers granted to him under the Agriculturist Relief Act. It has been heard by all the three Judges of this Court, sitting together in the following circumstances. The amount decreed was Rs. 500 and costs. Its payment was ordered to be made by half yearly instalment of Rs. 50. Under section 5 of the Agriculturist Relief Act in force in Dogra Regime and adopted by the Azad Kashmir Government, it is provided that no appeal shall lie from any decree passed in a suit to which this Act applies when the amount decreed exclusive of further interest allowed by the decree on such amount does not exceed Rs. 500 and the decree is passed by a Subordinate Judge. The decree being thus not appealable, a revision petition was lodged. When it came up for hearing before Niaz Ahmad J, a preliminary objection was raised that under section 115 Civil P. C. in force in Azad Kashmir Terri­tory, the findings of fact arrived at in the proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Sub-Judge which were alone challenged to be erroneous did not afford any ground for revision. As the practice in Kashmir High Court was otherwise, it was consi­dered proper to refer the matter to the Full Bench for decision. We have heard the parties, Counsel, at great length and seen the array of authorities of judgments of Indian High Courts and Privy Council cited by the respondent's Counsel in support of contention for example, 11 Cal. 5, 11 Mad. 410, 8 All. 519, 58 I C 182. We need not, however, discuss these authorities at any length because we agree with…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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