| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 668 1992 SLD 668 1992 CLC 553 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 93/13 of 1983, decided on 7th July, 1991. DATE of hearing: 25th June, 1991
MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J
Syed Zamir Hussain for Petitioners. Sh. Ziaullah for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 93/13 of 1983, decided on 7th July, 1991. DATE of hearing: 25th June, 1991
MUHAMMAD AMIR MALIK, J
Syed Zamir Hussain for Petitioners. Sh. Ziaullah for
Respondents
WALAYAT BEGUM and others
VS
WAZIR BEGUM and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- ----O.XLI, R.31 & S. 115---Applicability of O.XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.---Where all the pleas that could have been taken were taken before First Appellate Court and it disposed of the same, though it did not state the pleadings of parties in detail nor discussed evidence with particular reference to each and every issue, such though brief, yet it detailed the points raised before it and effectually settled the dispute, there was no need to write a lengthy with minutest details---Although no strict adherence to provisions of O.XLI, R.31, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, could be imputed to of Appellate Court, yet conclusions drawn by it could not be disputed in revision . Mehrban v. Hamid Khan 1985 CLC 1780; Tota Singh v. Labhoo Singh and another AIR 1933 Lah. 332; Allah Bakhsh etc. v. Noor Khan etc. 1980 CLC 498; Mehdi Hassan v. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi 1981 SCMR 1127; Mst. Roshi and others v. Mst. Fateh and others 1982 SCMR 542 and Karim Bukhsh v. Qadir Bakhsh and others PLD 1950 Lah.143 ref. (b) Judgment- ---- Where Appellate Court had disposed of appeal, though it did not state the pleadings of the parties in detail nor discussed evidence with particular reference to each and every issue, such though brief, yet it detailed the points raised before it and effectually settled the issues, there was no need to write a lengthy with minutest details. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-- ----Art.144---Adverse possession---Limitation---One co-sharer's entitlement to claim adverse possession over joint property---Property in question, being joint, even if same was mortgaged yet, after redemption by one co-sharer, his possession was to be considered possession of all co-sharers in the eye of law--One co-sharer could not claim adverse possession over the property in question, nor his possession could be said to have matured into full title. Hakim Muhammad Buta and another v. Habib Ahmad and others PLD 1985 SC 153 rel. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Conclusions on facts were not to be easily disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. (e) Court Fees Act (VII of 1870)--- ----S. 7 (iv) (b) & Art. 17, Sched.…
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