Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 1978 2004 SLD 1978 2004 CLC 1661
Peshawar High Court
C.R. No. 142 of 2002, decided in 3rd June, 2004.
IJAZ-UL-HASSAN KHAN, J

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

UMAR KHAN and anothers

VS

AJAB KHAN

Law:

Section:

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------Ss. 42 &, 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Suit was concurrently decreed by Courts below---Both the Courts had rightly clinched the factual controvercies, had dealt with the matter in threadbare manner and came to the conclusion that plaintiff was owner in possession of suit shops qua the defendant who was devoid of that status---Contentions raised by defendant had fully been taken care of and dealt with by the Courts very aptly which were not open to exception---Findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court were based on correct and careful appraisal of evidence and the grounds urged stood conclusively determined by s of two Courts---Both the s of the Courts were well-reasoned and had been passed after perusal of evidence on record---Courts after having discussed the total evidence on record, and undertaking in depth study of the oral and documentary evidence on record had found plaintiff as owner in possession of suit shops---Judgments and decrees of both Courts below being based on proper appreciation of evidence were not amenable to interference by High Court in its, revisional jurisdiction. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Interference in revision with decisions regarding matters which were within the discretion of subordinate Court was not warranted unless order was contrary to the principles governing the exercise of such discretion or the Court had acted perversely or arbitrarily---Improper exercise of discretion could be corrected in appeal, but not in revision---Revisional jurisdiction was directed against the irregular exercise, non-exercise or illegal assumption of jurisdiction and not against the conclusion of law or fact not involving question of jurisdiction, however, erroneous they could be---Findings recorded by the Courts of competent jurisdiction could not be interfered with by High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S.115, C.P.C., unless such findings suffered from jurisdictional defect, illegality or material,…
🔒
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