Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 766 2008 SLD 766 2008 CLC 713
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.21-D of 2008/BWP, decision dated: 21st January, 2008
KHURSHID ANWAR BHINDER, 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

NABI BAKHSH and otherss

VS

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Collector/D.C.O. and others

Law: Canal and Drainage Act, 1873

Section: 20

Law: Canal and Drainage Act, 1873

Section: 20

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 115

(a) Canal and Drainage Act (VIII of 1873)-------S. 20---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration to the effect that orders passed by authorities about alteration of impugned outlet, were illegal, against law and facts, without notice, without lawful authority, void, ineffective qua the rights of the plaintiffs and were liable to be cancelled---Suit had concurrently been dismissed by the courts below---Validity---Trial Court, after taking into consideration evidence adduced by, the plaintiffs had dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiffs against of the Trial Court was also dismissed by the Appellate Court---Record keeper, who appeared as witness had stated that the Patwari had served notice under S.20 of Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 upon shareholders of outlet, but plaintiffs despite having an opportunity, did not cross-examine the witnesses---Statements of said witnesses, in circumstances were admitted by the plaintiffs---Both courts below had exhaustively dealt with the issues involved in the case, had rightly appreciated the documentary as well oral evidence produced by the parties and reached the proper conclusions, which were not open to exception---Conclusions arrived at by both the courts below were not only in accordance with the record of the case, but were also in consonance with the law on the subject---Concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the courts below, based on proper appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, could not be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, when no case of misreading and non-reading of evidence had been trade out, nor any legal infirmity had been pointed out or any illegal exercise of jurisdiction, failure of exercise of jurisdiction by both the courts below had been attributed. Muhammad Rafique v. Aamer Shahzad and others 1999 YI.R 610; Abdul Rahim and another v. Mst. Janatay Bibi and others 2000 SCMR 346; Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCMR 431; Aziz Ullah Khan and others v. Gul Muhammad Khan 2000 SCMR 1647; Altaf Hussain v. Abdul Hameed and Abdul Majeed through legal heirs and another 2000 SCMR 314; Haji Noor Muhammad v.…
🔒
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