IFTIKHAR ALI ABBASI vs GHULAM QADIR S — 2025 PLD 685 SUPREME-COURT

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

IFTIKHAR ALI ABBASI VS GHULAM QADIR S.8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.2(12), 11, O.XX, R. 12 & O. XLI, R.27---Suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit---Mesne profit, determination and award of---Res judicata, applicability of---Production of additional evidence at appellate stage---Validity---Respondents, being owner of suit property on the strength of registered sale deeds, filed suit for possession and mesne profit by alleging that present petitioners had illegally and unlawfully occupied their property---The suit of the respondents after recording of evidence was decreed by the Trial Court and the said decree was maintained by the appellate court and the High Court by dismissing their appeal and civil revision respectively---Trial Court while granting decree in favour of respondents refused the plea to the extent of mesne profit, whereas, appellate court while allowing cross objections of respondents awarded mesne profit to the respondents---Through the present petition before the Supreme Court merits of the case were not argued on behalf of the petitioners, instead three points were raised; i.e. (i) Mesne profit, (ii) Res judicata; (iii) Refusal of additional documents by appellate court---This simply meant that ownership of respondents was out of question and possession of petitioners over the suit property was established to be illegal and unlawful---Question requiring consideration by the Supreme Court was as to "when ownership and the possession of the suit property by respondents went un-rebutted, what legal strength and force would have been left in such points?---Held: With regards to the grant of mesne profit, no hard and fast mechanism/rules could be made and the criteria for determining the quantum of mesne profit was subject to inquiry if the Trial Court so directed---The quantum of award of mesne profit would depend on case to case basis---With regards to the contention that Single Judge of High Court in Chambers did not give any findings despite taking a specific ground in civil revision, same was misconceived, as at the time of hearing what was argued before the court was reproduced in the impugned order which meant that this plea was not argued before the court at the time of hearing---Moreover, petitioners did not even take any specific ground qua mesne profit in the present petition before the Supreme Court which amounted to an acceptance of all findings on the said question by the petitioners---With regards to applicability of section 11, C.P.C., petitioners did not place any material before the court in support of that argument so it could not be proved that there had been a previous decided matter between the parties qua the suit property---With respect to production of additional evidence at appellate stage, the perusal of application reflected that no particulars and details of documents to be produced as additional evidence had been given by the petitioners---Moreover, it has been settled law that production of additional evidence cannot be claimed as a matter of right and mere vague application would not suffice the purpose of an application under Rule 27 of Order XLI, C.P.C., therefore, such contention of the petitioners had no force either---Petitioners failed to establish their nexus with the suit property---Present petition was meritless and same was dismissed and leave refused.

IFTIKHAR ALI ABBASI vs GHULAM QADIR S — 2025 PLD 685 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLD