Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 3100 = 1981 SLD 3100 = 1981 PLD 149
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 210 of 1979, decided on 13th May,' 1981.
Presented By: Usman Ali Shah, J
Sh. Wazir Muhammad for Petitioner. Abdur Rehman Khan for
Respondent:

SHARIF KHAN---Petitioner

VERSUS

PERVEZ---Respondent

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 151

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 151-Court witness--Evidence produced on either side appearing to be balanced and standing on equal footing and difficult to draw safe conclusion therefrom in favour of one party or other-Court can examine witness as Court witness and such witness can be considered a determining factor for just decision of case.--[Witness]. Date of hearing : 13th May, 1981.                                                                                                               JUDGMENT The dispute in this case relates to land measuring 209/270 share out of land measuring 11 kanals and 3 marlas comprised in Khasra Nos. 96 and 147, situate in village Billitang, District Kohat. The suit land was sold to the petitioner herein ostensibly for Rs. 10,000 through Mutation No. 45 attested on 12-8-1974. The respondent pre-empted this sole transaction. For the purpose of this revision application it is sufficient to state that before the two Courts below the petitioner did not challenge the superior right of pre-emption of respondent and only the question of limitation was argued before them. The learned Civil Judge, who tried the suit, dismissed the same as barred by limitation, vide his judgment dated 29-6-1978. But on appeal before the learned District Judge, the respondent succeeded and his suit was held within tune with the result that the learned District Judge accepted the appeal and granted a decree to the plaintiff/respondent on payment of Rs. 10,000 vide his judgment dated 11-3-1979. Hence this revision application by the defendant-petitioner. I have perused the. judgments of the two Courts below and have gone through the evidence on record. The plea of the petitioner was that he had taken possession of the suit land before the attestation of Mutation No. 45 on 12-8-1974 in his favour. The learned Civil Judge upheld this plea. He referred to the entries in the revenue…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register