Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: WAHID KHAN VS Respondent: NAWAB BIBIHonorable Justice Javid Iqbal
1988 S C M R 1990
1988 S C M R 1990
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ
WAHID KHAN‑‑Petitioner
versus
Mst. NAWAB BIBI and 7 others‑‑Respondents
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.654 of 1988, decided on 6th August, 1988.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 7th June, 1988 in Civil Revision No.1476 of 1981).
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Findings of fact having been decided against the petitioner and no question of law involved, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
S.M. Masood, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
ORDER
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the Civil Revision of the petitioner was dismissed.
Briefly the facts are that the petitioner filed a suit seeking declaration that he was owner of property No.P‑215, Ward No.6 Faisalabad except shop consisting of two rooms towards Bhawana Bazar and as a consequential relief he also sought decree for permanent injunction against respondent No.1 and the other respondents. The suit was contested by respondent No.1. The claim of the petitioner to the effect that he was owner of portion of property on the ground floor was denied. The trial Court after considering the evidence of both the sides and in the light of the findings arrived at in favour of the petitioner on issues Nos.4 and 5 decreed the suit. The appeal of respondent No.1 against the judgment of the trial Court was accepted by the Additional District Judge and thus the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by way of civil` revision which has been dismissed by learned single Judge of the Lahore High Court as stated above mainly on the ground that the findings arrived of by, the trial Court on issues Nos.4 and 5 were not in accordance with the evidence on record and, therefore, the lower appellate Court had correctly reversed the same. In other words learned counsel for the petitioner could not convince the learned Judge that the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court in any way amounted to either misreading or misconstruing the record or in any way keeping out of consideration any material piece of evidence which had bearing upon the merits of the case. Since the findings of fact have been decided against the petitioner and no question of law is involved, we do not find any substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
M.B.A./W‑35/S Petition dismissed.