| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2007 SLG 2707 2007 SLD 2707 2007 CLC 1885 |
Lahore High Court
Regular Second Appeal No.224 of 1975, decision dated: 9-07-2007.
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Regular Second Appeal No.224 of 1975, decision dated: 9-07-2007.
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
FATEH MUHAMMAD through L.Rs. and others
VS
FIDA HUSSAIN SHAH through L.Rs.
Law:
Section:
(a) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)-------Art.129(g)---Where a party does not appear as his own witness, the Court may draw an adverse inference against him. Feroz Khan v. Mst. Waziran Bibi 1987 SCMR 1647 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XIII, R.4---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts.2(1) & 113---Document admitted in evidence and brought on record---Effect---Contents of such document could be read and given effect to by Court even in the absence of a plea by a party to such effect. Raza Munir and another v. Mst. Sardar Bibi and 3 others 2005 SCMR 1316 ref. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VIII, R.5, O.XII, R.6, O.XV, R.1---Mortgage or sale---Plaintiff sought declaration to the effect that suit-land was purchased by him against consideration and to avoid threat of pre-emption it was given the shape of mortgage---Entries in Revenue Records reflected the transaction to be a mortgage---Earlier, in a suit for pre-emption the original vendor of suit-land had admitted in his written statement that transaction in question was a sale and not mortgage---Courts below relied upon such admission and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff---Contention that admission was relevant only in the proceedings in which such admission was made and could not be used in subsequent suit, was repelled as the decree was not passed solely on the basis of admission made in earlier suit---Defendant also had not denied contents of plaint in specific terms which under R.5 of O.VIII, C.P.C. was taken to be admitted and Court had to pass on strength of such admission---Question of sale was not required to be determined and was to be pronounced as per O.XV; R:1, C.P.C., in circumstances---Even application for redemption filed by predecessor of defendant in 1944 had been dismissed by Assistant Collector on ground that transaction of land in dispute was traced as sale---Such findings having not been assailed in any higher forum had got finality and could not be agitated again. Muqarrab Hussain (deceased) through his Legal Representative and another v. Pirzada Muhammad Rafique (deceased) through his Legal Representative…
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