ALI DAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN S — 2023 MLD 2055 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

ALI DAD VS MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN S. 115---Concurrent findings---Revisional jurisdiction of the Chief Court---Validity---Concurrent findings of courts could not be upset by the Chief Court in its revisional jurisdiction in a casual manner, rather it had to be proved that the same were preserve, arbitrary or were based on mis-reading or non-reading of evidence---Findings on question of fact or law recorded by the Court of competent jurisdiction, could not be interfered with by the Chief Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, unless such findings suffered from jurisdictional defects, illegality or material irregularity which were lacking in the case---Both the Courts below had properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them---Chief Court maintained the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2023 MLD 2055 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief CourtBookmark this Case ALI DAD VS MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Claim of the plaintiff was that the suit-land was purchased jointly by him and the defendant but he (defendant) had clandestinely transferred joint-property in his name in connivance with Revenue Officers---Suit was concurrently dismissed---Contention of the petitioner/plaintiff was that he had produced five witnesses who had orally proved his claim---Validity---Record revealed that the petitioner/plaintiff had not produced any valid and cogent documentary evidence in the Trial Court, however, he had produced five oral witnesses---Statements of witnesses produced by the petitioner/plaintiff showed that all the witnesses had failed to substantiate his claim , rather one of the them, who was original owner of the suit-property, had supported the contention of the respondent/defendant stating that he (petitioner) had sold out the suit-property to the respondent/defendant---Said witness (original owner) had also admitted in cross-examination that the mutation-in-question had been attested in favour of the respondent in his presence---Relevant Jamabandi of suit-land had been prepared in the name of the respondent/defendant, which had not been challenged by the petitioner/plaintiff in the plaint---Petitioner/plaintiff had filed the suit after 25 years of attestation of mutation-in-question, hence his suit was time-barred---Both the Courts below had properly exercised the jurisdiction vested in them---Chief Court maintained the impugned judgments passed by both the Courts below---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Head NotesCase Description

ALI DAD vs MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN S — 2023 MLD 2055 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD