| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 740 2000 SLD 740 2000 SCMR 214 2000 SLD 1152 2000 SCMR 214 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.85-L of 1998, decision dated: 12-04-1999.
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND SH. RIAZ AHMED, JJ
Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No.85-L of 1998, decision dated: 12-04-1999.
MUHAMMAD BASHIR, JEHANGIRI AND SH. RIAZ AHMED, JJ
Rana Muhammad Sarwar, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondent.
Master NAZEER AHMED
VS
MUHAMMAD JAMIL
Law:
Section:
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--Art, 185(3)---Leave to appeal---High Court in its had observed that concurrent findings arrived at by Courts below were not open to exception because said findings were not based upon non-reading or misreading of evidence on record---Observation of High Court based on proper appreciation of evidence on record could not be interfered with by Supreme Court. ORDER SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment and order dated 18-9-1997 delivered by learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Chambers whereby a revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 115, C.P.C., calling in question the judgment and order dated 25-7-1992 decreeing the suit of the respondent against the petitioner and the order dated 6-2-1996 passed by the first appellate Court upholding the judgment and decree of the civil Court was dismissed. 2. The facts in brief are that the respondent instituted a suit against the petitioner seeking a permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from closing the street and raising any construction obstructing the passage of the respondent for approaching Faisalabad Road. The respondent averred in the plaint that he constructed the house after getting sanction and in front of the house there was a passage, which was used as an approach to the Faisalabad Road and there was no other approach or access to the property except the passage mentioned in the plaint. According to the respondent, the petitioner intended to raise a construction at points AB & CD shown in the plaint for the purpose of obstructing the approach of the respondent, which if not stopped would deprive the respondent of the only access to the property. 3. The petitioner resisted the suit and stated in the written statement that there did not exist any street or passage and the respondent could not be allowed to use the property of others as a passage and by taking advantage of the weak health and old age of the father of the petitioner, the respondent intends to usurp the property. After settling issues and recording evidence there, the learned Civil Judge vide judgment dated 25-7-1992 decreed the suit and the…
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