Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 96, 115 , O.XX R.18, O.XLI R.1 , O.XX Rr. 6 , 7

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----Ss. 96, 115 & O.XX R.18, O.XLI R.1 & O.XX Rr. 6 & 7--Partition suit--Parties were co-owners--Preliminary decree was passed on consent Local commission was appointed Final decree was prepared after report Appeal was filed without decree sheet--From joint reading of above referred provisions, it clearly manifested that appeal was only competent against decree and not judgment--It was also obvious, therefore, that appellate Court was though competent to dispense with production of copy of judgment but not decree, which was sine qua non for preferring an appeal--It was oft repeated principle of law that no party could be made to suffer on account of any act or omission of Court--A litigant could not be taxed, much less penalized of act or omission of Court--It was cardinal principle of law that in matter of giving preference to judgments of lower Courts--Preference and regard was always given to findings of appellate Court, unless those were suffering with any legal infirmity or material irregularity.                                                               [Pp. 991, 993 & 994] A, B & C Ref. 2016 SCMR 834; PLD 2022 SC 73; 2013 SCMR 1300. M/s. Muhammad Amir Butt and Syed Ijaz Hussain Hamdani, Advocates for Applicants. Khawaja Muhammad Asghar Farooq, Advocate for Respondents No. 1 to 21 & 24 to 32. Raja Munir Ahmad, Advocate for Respondents No. 22 & 23. Ex-parte for Respondents No. 33 to 36. Date of hearing: 24.6.2025. Judgment This revision application in terms of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (V of 1908) (hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) originates from the suit for separate possession through partition instituted by the applicants against respondents before the learned Civil Judge, Chakwal with the assertions that parties to the suit are co-owners and it is still…