Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: JEHAN DAD KHAN VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE KHAN
1988 S C M R 1120
1988 S C M R 1120
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
JEHAN DAD KHAN‑‑Petitioner
Versus
MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE KHAN and others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition No.828 of 1980, decided on 12th April, 1988.
(From the judgment and order, dated 9‑3‑1980 of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.363 of 1978. )
Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958 )‑
‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that question whether respondents were in possession of a house was one of fact and High Court was not competent in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to interfere with finding of District Judge and that High Court had misread record in setting aside finding of that Court.
Mian Nazir Akhtar, Advocate 'Supreme Court and Ch. Qamaruddin Khan, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on ‑Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 12th April, 1988.
ORDER SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑There were two evacuee houses, bearing Nos. 9 and 26, in Eimenabad of Tehsil Gujranwala. House No.9 was transferred to the petitioner while house No.26 was transferred to the respondents. The two houses were about a furlong apart. The dispute in this petition relates to house No.9. The petitioner filed a suit for its possession on the ground that the respondents had forcibly taken over its possession. The respondents resisted the suit. They stated that the house under their occupation bore No.2H and not No.9. After a regular trial the learned trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the house in the occupation of the respondents was one bearing No.26 alone. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Judge. After reappraising the evidence the learned District Judge reversed the finding of the trial Court and held that house No.9 was in the occupation of the respondents; accordingly, he accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the petitioner. The respondents filed a revision petition in the High Court. After once again examining the evidence a learned Single Judge reversed the finding of the District Judge and upheld that of the trial Court. Accordingly, he set aside' the judgment of the District Judge and restored the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
2. In support of this petition for special leave to appeal, it is contended that the question whether the respondents were in possession of house No.9 was one of fact and the High Court was not competent in exercise of revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the finding o the District Judge. It is further contended that the High Court ha misread the record in setting aside the finding of the District Judge.
3. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,000. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if necessary.
M.Y.H./J‑23/S Leave granted.