Mian FAZL-E-KAREEM vs KHAN MUHAMMAD art — 2025 PLD 145 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

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

Mian FAZL-E-KAREEM VS KHAN MUHAMMAD art. 112(2)---Judicial notice---Scope---Custom having force of law need not be proved separately in each case---Court may take judicial notice in accordance with art. 112(2) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 145 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mian FAZL-E-KAREEM VS KHAN MUHAMMAD S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Scope---Revisional Court is not supposed to follow wrong findings of facts of two Courts below and to become contributory thereto. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 145 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mian FAZL-E-KAREEM VS KHAN MUHAMMAD S. 115---Revisional Court---Moulding of relief---Scope---Civil Court or Revisional Court has jurisdiction to mould relief. Citation Name: 2025 PLD 145 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case Mian FAZL-E-KAREEM VS KHAN MUHAMMAD Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Share in inheritance---Wrong entries in revenue record---Effect---Petitioners/ plaintiffs claimed to be owners in suit property to the extent of Sharai share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---Petitioners/plaintiffs assailed entries in revenue record in favour of respondents/defendants---Suit and appeal filed by petitioners/plaintiffs were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively---Validity---In every Jamabandi brought on record, same position of self-cultivation of owners had been shown---Such entries expressly indicated that brothers of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/plaintiffs had been cultivating property in dispute---One of the petitioners/plaintiffs who appeared as witness affirmed that suit property was still in their possession---Petitioners/plaintiffs were in continuous possession of property in dispute and mere wrong entries in revenue record were deemed to be a refreshing cause of action with each repetition---High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below and decreed the suit in favour of petitioners/plaintiffs to the extent of Shari share of their deceased predecessor-in-interest---High Court directed revenue authorities to redraw entries in revenue record and enter inheritance mutation in respect of legacy of deceased predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/ plaintiffs---Revision was allowed accordingly.

Mian FAZL-E-KAREEM vs KHAN MUHAMMAD art — 2025 PLD 145 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD