Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLG 635 1999 SLD 635 1999 PLD 57
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No.228 with Civil Miscellaneous No.297 of 1998, decision dated: 30-11-1998.
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUSTICE

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

SHAHZAD MIR AND others

VS

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 115 Revision Scope Erroneous conclusion of law or fact ¬Correction Erroneous conclusion of law or fact could be corrected in appeal but it could not be granted in revision petition. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 115 Revision Scope Error of jurisdiction or non compliance of statutory provisions of law Correction Interference by High Court in revision Extent High Court could correct error of jurisdiction or non¬compliance of statutory provision of law in revision Revisional Court was not bound to interfere with the merits of case. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) S. 115 & OXXIII, R.1 Revision Permission to file fresh suit ¬Application alongwith revision petition was filed before High Court for the withdrawal of suit with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action Validity High Court could not permit petitioners to set up a case already abandoned and which they did not urge before lower forum ¬Revision petition alongwith application to file fresh suit was dismissed in limine. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN, JUSTICE:---.--- Shahzad Mir son of Shah Mir and others have preferred the present revision petition against the Provincial Government N. W.F.P. throughCollector, Kohat and private respondents Nos. 2 to 59 challenging the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Kohat dated 8 1 1998 and judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Kohat dated 20 5 1992. 2. Facts of the case briefly stated are that Shahzad Mir and others filed a suit against the Government of N. W.F.P. through Collector and others (hereinafter to be referred as respondents) for a declaration to the effect that they were owners in possession of the suit property under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 and, therefore, the entries in the Revenue Record in respect of the defendants were incorrect and inoperative against their rights. Prayer for permanent injunction was also made. The suit was vehemently contested by the respondents at the trial Court and in the light of the evidence of the parties recorded the trial Court dismissed the suit. Appeal preferred before the learned District Judge, Kohat also met…
🔒
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