Case Details

Citation(s)
1988 SLG 2489 1988 SLD 2489 1988 SCMR 1206
Supreme Court of Pakistan
(On appeal from the Order Dated 12-10-1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No. 10295 of 1980). C . P. S. L. A . No. 861 of 1985 ALLAH DITTA and another--Petitioners versus MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another-Respondents (On appeal f
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH AND JAVID IQBAL, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ALLAH DITTA and anothers

VS

MUHAMMAD BASHIR and 3 others--Respondents C . P. S. L. A . No. 861 of 1985 ALLAH DITTA and anothers vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR and another--Respondents

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--   -S.115--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Leave to appeal, grant of--Conclusive findings of fact--Interference with--Incorrect preparation of record--Effect of--Leave to appeal sought against orders passed in revisional jurisdiction--Plea that on account of some misconception or otherwise record was not correctly prepared, not entertained--Case having concluded on findings of facts and no justification having been made out for grant of leave to appeal, petitions dismissed. ORDER MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These two petitions arise out of the same; case, therefore, they are being disposed of together. 2. The respondents side had succeeded in obtaining a pre-emption decree. The case of petitioners side is that immediately after the decision by the trial Court, there was a compromise between the parties and although the pre-emption money was deposited by the decree-holder, the funds were supplied by the judgment-debtor. One of the conditions of the alleged compromise was that the decree-holder shall not execute the decree. However, allegedly, the latter went back on the promise and filed application for execution. It was dismissed in 1972. Another application was filed which was allowed ex parte in 1975. The respondents side claimed that possession changed hands as a result of execution; while the petitioners side contended that only constructive possession was delivered to the decree-holder. Despite the aforementioned execution, the petitioners side filed Objection Application regarding the nature of delivery of possession. It was dismissed. Their appeal was also dismissed by order dated 13-11-1975. It was never challenged and became final. However, another application under section 47, C.P. C. was moved by the petitioners side, which was also dismissed in 1979. A revision filed against the order of this dismissal was also dismissed in 1980. Not having been satisfied by all the proceedings, the petitioners then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, which having also been dismissed by order dated 12-12-1980, leave to appeal through C.P. No.1541 of 1980 has been sought, from the said order of the High Court.…
🔒
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