Citation Name: 2024 YLR 926 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed TAZEEB ABBAS vs BASHIR AHMED art

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

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 926 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed TAZEEB ABBAS VS BASHIR AHMED art. 79---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Registered document---Proof---Plaintiff claimed that registered exchange deed, and subsequent mutation were illegal to the extent of certain part/share of the Khasra (Khasra-in-question)---Suit was dismissed by the Trial Court which judgment was maintained by the appellate Court---Validity---Registered exchange deed, in the present case, was an admitted document, in consequence of which a mutation in the year 1981 was incorporated in the revenue record---admitted facts need not to be proved---Even otherwise, the petitioners/plaintiff failed to bring on record any solid, concrete and trustworthy oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their assertions made in the plaint regarding concerned Khasra---as such the Courts below rightly passed the impugned judgments and decrees and no illegality had been committed---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 926 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed TAZEEB ABBAS VS BASHIR AHMED art. 120---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Limitation---Registered exchange deed was executed in the year 1981 whereas the petitioners filed suit for declaration in the year 2009 after lapse of 28 years and 24 days---Under art. 120 of the Limitation act, 1908, the maximum period for filing the suit for declaration was six years as such the suit of the petitioners was barred by time and no convincing reason had been furnished for delayed filing of the suit---Suitors were under legal obligation to explain the delay of each and every day but no such convincing reasons of delay had been furnished to surmount the barrier of limitation in said regard, thus the non-furnishing of the explanation of delay disentitled the suitors for condonation of the delay---Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2024 YLR 926 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed TAZEEB ABBAS VS BASHIR AHMED S. 115---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Concurrent findings--- Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Trial Court which judgment and decree was maintained by the appellate Court---Validity---Concurrent findings of fact against the petitioners/plaintiffs did not call for any interference by the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction---Revision filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2024 YLR 926 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case Syed TAZEEB ABBAS vs BASHIR AHMED art — 2024 YLR 926 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 YLR