| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2005 SLG 1865 2005 SLD 1865 2005 PLD 401 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No. 908 of 2000, heard on 16th March, 2005
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J
Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.G. for Petitioners. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry for
Respondents
Civil Revision No. 908 of 2000, heard on 16th March, 2005
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J
Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Addl. A.G. for Petitioners. Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry for
Respondents
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Gujranwala and anothers
VS
ALAMGIR and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115, O.XLI, R.27--Revisional jurisdiction of High Court, exercise of---Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below---Additional evidence---Plaintiffs claimed to be the owners in possession of suit plot had sought injunction restraining the authorities from interference in their possession---Authorities claimed that the suit plot had been acquired for public housing scheme and the plaintiffs had already received their compensation---Trial Court relying upon a report of Local Commission had decreed suit in favour of plaintiffs---Authorities, (petitioners) had filed application for producing additional evidence which was dismissed by Trial Court and Appellate Court---Contention of authorities was that the documents required to be produced were essential for the just decision of the suit and the report of Local Commission was not according to revenue record---Validity---In case the documents had to be read with the pleadings of parties such documents were necessary for just decision and case could not be decided without perusal of those documents, which were material and necessary---Authorities had taken a specific stand on the basis of the record before the Courts below that Local Commission had tendered his report without perusing the revenue record and without notice to Collector, who was party in the proceedings---As the Courts below did not consider such aspect of the case, therefore, s of both the Courts below were based on surmises and conjectures---Court must base all its findings on the evidence before it and not on mere surmises and conjectures---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction allowed the application for additional evidence filed by authorities- --Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court was set aside and the case was remanded to Appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh after considering the effect of documentary evidence---Revision was allowed accordingly. Mst. Jewan Bibi and 2 others v. Inayat Masih 1996 SCMR 1430; Sh. Muhammad Ikhlas and others v. Muhammad Ismail PLD 1963 SC 466; Akbar Ali and others v. Province of Punjab and others…
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