Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SAID AMEEN VS Respondent: KHAN MIRA
1989 S C M R 2054
1989 S C M R 2054
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ
SAID AMEEN Petitioner
versus
Mst. KHAN MIRA and another‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.71‑R of 1988, decided on 21st May, 1989.
(On appeal from the order, dated 7‑2‑1988 of the Peshawar High Court, in Civil Revision No.293 of 1985).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Findings of fact‑ Findings of fact were based on proper consideration of the material facts by the High Court in accordance with the provisions of S.115, C.P.C‑‑No jurisdictional or procedural defect was found‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
(b) Evidence‑‑
‑‑‑ Witness who had allegedly thumb‑marked the report of the Patwari had not referred the same in his deposition‑‑Reliance on the report by petitioner was held of no avail.
Muhammad lqbal, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Ch.Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Mian Younus Shah, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
Dale of hearing: 21st May, 1989.
ORDER
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and possession regarding land claimed to have been purchased by the petitioner.
The suit for declaration and possession was dismissed by the learned trial Judge but a decree for recovery of Rs.13,000 was granted to the petitioner. The appeals of both the parties were dismissed by the learned District Court. The petitioner accepted the appellate verdict but the respondent /defendant's side moved the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction regarding the recovery of Rs.13,000. Petitioner has now sought leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court.
After hearing both the learned counsel we feel satisfied that the findings of fact are based on proper consideration of the material by the High Court in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 115, C.P.C. There is no jurisdictional or procedural defect in the impugned judgment. We have also examined the merits of the findings regarding the entry in the report of the Patwari (Ex.PW‑1/4). The reliance on this report from the petitioner's side was of no avail in the circumstances of the case. Similarly it has correctly been noticed that Lashadar who had allegedly thumb‑marked the said report had not referred IB to it in his deposition; therefore, this material was also of no help to the petitioner. The failure to produce the Lambardar in evidence similarly was correctly noticed in the High Court judgment.
Keeping in view all the circumstances of the case no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal, the same therefore is refused.
M.A.K./S‑311/S Leave refused.