Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

(i) ActofCourt —Litigants would not be allowed to suffer for acts of the Court.   [P. 1170] A (ii) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- —-S. US-Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877), S. 42-Concurrent jurisdiction-Benami transactions-Concurrent findings of facts, how erroneous might be, were immune from interference in revisional jurisdiction in absence of any misreading of evidence-High Court upheld concurrent findings of lower Courts by which five connected suits for declaration on the basis of benami transactions had been decreed. [P. 1170] B PLD 1970 Dacca 414, 1979 CLC 338,1993 CLC 605, 1993 CLC 1606, 1997 CLC 176, 1994 SCMR 818, PLD 1994 SC 291, 1996 SCMR 575,1997 SCMR 1139, PLD 2000 SC 839 and 2001 SCMR 1493, referred.                                                                                                                      judgment This civil revision assails judgments and decrees dated 9.6.1994 and 15.5.1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge and learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, respectively, concurrently deciding lis against the petitioner. 2. Precisely, relevant facts are that Muhammad Iqbal respondent filed five suits against his father Feroze Din and brother Muhammad Afzal (petitioner) for declaration and permanent injunction regarding different properties, all to the effect that plaintiff is owner of the properties which were purchased by him in the name of his father Feroze Din as a Benamidar. Respondent pleaded that he was the eldest son of Feroze Din and having deep love and affection with his father and the younger brother, he purchased different properties, detailed in his plaints, by paying from his own pocket the entire sale consideration to the owners from whom those were purchased at the time of purchase by the respondent. It was claimed that possession of those properties were delivered to him. Respondent…