Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL GHAFOOR VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD FAROOQHonorable Justice Ajmal MianA . H Rajput,Naeem Ahmed
1989 C L C 78
1989 C L C 78
[Karachi]
Before Ajmal Mian, J
ABDUL GHAFOOR‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Revision No. 49 of 1988, decided on 3rd April, 1988.
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑
‑‑‑5. 115‑‑Revision‑‑Petitioner in his suit for declaration, possession and injunction claimed land in dispute as part and parcel of his plot‑‑Courts below recorded concurrent findings that petitioner had failed to produce any reliable evidence in support of his claim‑‑Findings of Courts below in consonance with evidence on record and petitioner failed to point out any document on record which might be contrary to findings‑‑Interference declined by High Court in revision.
A . H Rajput for Petitioner. Naeem Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1988.
JUDGMENT
This revision is directed against the judgment/decree dated 10‑5‑1986 and 22‑12‑1987 passed by the VIIIth Senior Civil Judge and 1st Additional District Judge (South) Karachi, in Suit No.4099 of 1980 and Civil Appeal No.88 of 1986 respectively.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above revision are that the present petitioner filed aforesaid suit for declaration, possession and injunction in respect of land measuring about 59 sq. yds. of which respondent No.l has been granted lease by respondent No.3 on the ground of possession of unauthorised land. The case of the petitioner before the two Courts below was that the above 59 sq. yds. land was part and parcel of Excise No. AK‑19/A‑8S‑18. However, A both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings that the petitioner has failed to produce any reliable evidence in support of his claim that the suit plot was part and parcel of his above plot. The above concurrent findings seems to be in consonance with the evidence on record inasmuch as the petitioner has failed to point out to me any document on record which may be contrary to the above finding.
3. I would, therefore, dismiss the above revision in limine.
M.Y.H/A‑328/K Petition dismissed.