1988 SCMR 1120

JEHAN DAD KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE KHAN

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1988 SCMR 1120

CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan

Case No.Civil Petition No.828 of 1980

Date1988-04-12

Judge(s)Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan

Authored bySaad Saood Jan

ResultLeave granted

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.